Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL,

"to extend the boundaries of the county borough of Sunderland and for purposes incidental thereto; to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the said county borough to construct street works and to construct, maintain, and work tramways; to confer further powers upon the Corporation with regard to their electricity undertaking and with regard to the health, improvement, good government, and finance of the country borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

TURKEY AND BULGARIA.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the dispute between Turkey and Bulgaria; and whether the matter has been reported to the League of Nations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on 11th March, to which I have nothing to add.

PARAGUAY.

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is being taken by the Council of the League of Nations in view of the fact that on 24th February Paraguay committed an act of war against Great Britain and every other member of the League of Nations under the Covenant of the League by its refusal to cease
hostilities with Bolivia; whether the terms of Article 16 of the Covenant are to be applied; if so, in what form; when the committee of the Council set up to advise on the Chaco dispute last met; and who has been appointed president to take the place of M. Najera?

Sir J. SIMON: The Advisory Committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations met at Geneva on 11th March, under the chairmanship of the Portuguese representative, Monsieur Vasconcellos, and is at the moment considering the matters to which the hon. Member refers. I cannot anticipate the conclusions which the committee will reach.

Mr. MANDER: Is not a great deal of the difficulty due to certain South American States failing to play the game in regard to the embargo; and does not the question really arise of the expulsion of Paraguay from the League?

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that most of the country does not share the pacific bellicosity of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Mrs. Corbett Ashby, the substitute delegate for the British Government to the Disarmament Conference, resigned her position?

Sir J. SIMON: The reasons put forward by Mrs. Corbett Ashby for her resignation were contained in a letter addressed to the Prime Minister on 6th March. The texts of this letter and of the Prime Minister's reply were given by Mrs. Corbett Ashby to the Press and appeared in the newspapers on 9th March. I have nothing to add to those letters

Mr. MANDER: Was not the reason stated in that letter, the stinging condemnation of the whole conduct of the Disarmament Conference by His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will find that the best way of ascertaining the contents of a written document is to read the document.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have read it and have come to that conclusion?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (LOAN).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of the international loan which it is suggested would be given to China; whether this sum will be provided or guaranteed by the chief countries having commercial or other interests in the Far East; and, if so, whether he will state the names of these countries?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn) on 6th March.

—
U.S.A.
Japan.
France, (c)
Italy (c)
Germany.



Dollars.
Yen.
Francs.
Lire.
RM.


1929–30 (or 1929)
364,693,314
261,108,889
2,485,349,508
1,232,433,630
180,175,860


621,337,377 (a)


1930–31
403,242,836
242,932,204
2,722,741,389
1,575,966,000
188,624,700


1931–32
359,198,792
211,887,096
2,799,830,314
1,573,622,800
183,504,350


1932–33 (or 1932)
333,926,573
306,766,533
2,506,263,577 (b)
1,574,923,277
183,504,350


1933–34 (or 1933)
297,000,000 (g) (f).
403,771,338
2,712,254,973
1,397,222,277
183,004,350


1934–35 (or 1934)
442,527,832 (f)
488,509,658
3,173,283,494 (d)
1,224,780,477
233,005,150


1935–36 (1935)
593,695,947 (proposed) (f)
530,000,000 (proposed).
3,298,858,118 (e)
1,304,881,000 (proposed).
—


(a) For period 1st January—31st March, 1930, after which fiscal year was changed to 1st April,—31st March.


(b) For 9 months only, due to change back of fiscal year to 1st January—31st December, includes Frs. 95,000,000 special vote.


(c) Original voted estimates—excluding subsequent amendments.


(d) Includes Frs. 230,000,000 special vote. Also includes Naval Air Service vote, which from 1929 to 1933 inclusive was included under Air Ministry budget.


(e) Includes Frs. 396,000,000 special vote. Also includes Naval Air Service Vote, which from 1929 to 1933 inclusive was included under Air Ministry budget.


(f) Includes estimated expenditures under National Industrial Recovery Act, etc.


(g) Estimated expenditure. Original voted Estimates were reduced by Economy Acts.

In view of the fluctuations in the rates of exchange, and the different standards of values in the various countries, no reliable figures are available for converting the foregoing amounts into comparable sterling values. Furthermore, the Navy Estimates of the various countries can never be satisfactorily compared.

Mr. G. HALL: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cruiser, destroyer, and submarine tonnage which can be laid

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the amount of money approved for naval purposes for the years from 1929 to date, giving each year separately, for each of the following countries, United States of America, France, Italy, Germany and Japan; and the amounts in sterling values?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): As the answer is in tabular form, I propose with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total Navy Estimates voted by the countries in question were as follow:

down in accordance with Article 19 of the International Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments, 1930, in view of the ships which will become over age in 1937, 1938, and 1939; and the names of the ships which will, in existing conditions, become over age in the three years mentioned?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: As the information is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


—
1937.
1938.
1939.


Name.
Tonnage.
Name.
Tonnage.
Name.
Tonnage.


Cruisers
…
Durban
4,850
Despatch
4,850
—
—






Diomede
4,850
—
—






Cape Town
4,200
—
—






Adelaide (R.A.N.)
5,100
—
—




1 ship.
4,850 tons.
4 ships.
19,000
—
—


Destroyers
…
Broke
1,480
—
—
—
—




Keppel
1,480
—
—
—
—




2 ships.
2,960
—
—
—
—


Submarines
…
L. 23
760
L. 53
845
L. 26
760




L. 54
845
X. 1
2,425
L. 27
760




2 ships.
1,605
2 ships.
3,270
2 ships.
1,520

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (NAVAL REVIEW).

Mr. RANKIN: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to mobilise any of the units of the Reserve Fleet or officers and men on the reserve and emergency lists of His Majesty's Navy in connection with the naval review to be held at Spithead this summer?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Arrangements are at present under consideration for bringing forward certain units of the Reserve Fleet to take part in the naval review. A certain number of reserve officers and men will be afforded the opportunity of performing their periodical training at the time of the naval review

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

Mr. PALING: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the pro posed legislation establishing a local Asian civil service in Kenya Colony has been submitted to him; and whether he will recommend that the Asian officers who have not completed eight years' continuous service as at 1st January, 1933, but who are confirmed in their appointments and are on pensionable status, should not be transferred, against their will, to the local Asian civil service?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have received the proposals for the
establishment of the Asian local civil service in Kenya which, except in so far as they refer to the creation of a provident fund, do not require legislation. These proposals are still being considered, but they do not contemplate that any officer who has already acquired pensionable status should be transferred to the new service against his wishes, whether he had completed eight years' service on the 1st January, 1933, or not.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet any information as to whether it has been found possible to balance the budget of Kenya Colony for the coming financial year; and whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the general financial position of that colony?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, the estimates for 1935 anticipate a surplus of £15,907; and I have recently learned from the governor that, according to the latest figures, last year resulted in an excess of revenue of about £4,000, in place of the deficit of £54,000 which was previously expected. This satisfactory result appears to be due to increased trading activity towards the close of the year; and, as I stated in reply to a question on the 27th of February, there is reason to hope that, if the colony is not again afflicted by drought or other un-
predictable setbacks, its general financial position will show an improvement during the present year.

Captain GUEST: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up this point—whether the taxes specifically imposed for 3933–1934 have had to be re-imposed to enable him to get that benefit?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My right hon. and gallant Friend's question is based on a complete misconception. Taxes are constantly imposed, like the income tax here, every year, in connection with that year's budget, but there has never been any suggestion that the taxes imposed a year ago to balance the budget would be withdrawn at the end of that year.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA (HEALTH SERVICES).

Mr. PARKINSON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the quarantine regulations in the Gambia have yet been relaxed; whether, in particular, attendance at schools and at church services is allowed; and whether any steps are under consideration for the prevention of disease through the establishment of an adequate drainage system, the promotion of housing schemes and the provision of medical and sanitary services, including, if necessary, a quarantine board, with inclusion of per sons with knowledge of local conditions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answers to the first two parts of this question are in the affirmative. It is understood that the governor of the Gambia is at present formulating proposals to improve the health situation in Bathurst, and no doubt these will contain recommendations in respect of the drainage system and housing schemes. Steps have already been taken to increase the staff of the medical and health services and further additions are under consideration. No proposal for the establishment of a quarantine board has been brought to my notice and I am not aware of any necessity for such a board.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZANZIBAR (CLOVE MARKETING SCHEME).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the detrimental effect
of the Clove Growers' Association upon British trade with Zanzibar, he will re consider the legislation setting up this association?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot accept the suggestion that the reconstitution of the Clove Growers' Association on its present lines has had any detrimental effect on British trade with Zanzibar. On the contrary, the information I have received goes to show that, even in the short time which has elapsed since the reconstitution, the people of Zanzibar have already begun to derive substantial benefit. In the circumstances, I see no necessity for any reconsideration of the recent enactments, though I can assure the hon. Member that the situation is carefully watched by the Zanzibar Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any communication on the subject from the East African section of the London Chamber of Commerce presided over by Sir Humphrey Leggett; and whether he is aware that a further consignment of 900 tons of cloves has been ordered by the Americans from Madagascar although hitherto they got their supplies from Zanzibar?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I think the chamber of commerce asked for certain information which was supplied to them. I do not think we have had any other communications from them. With regard to the second part of the question, there has always been an export of cloves from Madagascar and the volume of that export was taken very carefully into consideration by the Zanzibar Government. They carefully reviewed the matter on the spot.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible to find out from the Zanzibar Government whether there have been other purchases made in Madagascar which up to now were being made in Zanzibar; and whether the London Chamber of Commerce have made any definite representations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have answered the first point. It would obviously be useless to inquire in Zanzibar as to whether somebody in America has made purchases in Madagascar. I think the best evidence of the reason-
able success of the scheme, which is consonant with marketing schemes all through the Empire, is that the price has improved by a certain amount and has been very steady for some time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the trade not all in the hands of one firm now?

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (COURTS).

Sir BROGRAVE BEAUCHAMP: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can give any information regarding the results of the reforms in language and procedure of the Maltese courts which were carried through last autumn?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, the results of four months' working show that arrears in the courts are being rapidly overtaken. The cases pending on the 1st of October last in the courts of first instance showed a decrease on the 1st of February of from 1,043 to 681, i.e., 362; and in the commercial court a decrease of from 360 to 183, i.e., 177. In the same period the cases pending in the court of appeal increased from 164 to 189. This slight increase of 25 is accounted for by the increased number of cases heard to a conclusion in the courts of first instance, and by illness among the members of the court of appeal. These figures attest the marked success with which the reforms have been attended. The indications are that at the end of a year's working arrears in the courts of first instance are likely to be eliminated; and it may reasonably be hoped that the arrears in the court of appeal will also be overtaken. In any case, with the clearing of the lists in the courts of first instance it will be possible, should it be necessary, to give assistance to the court of appeal.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (FIGHTER AIRCRAFT).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the construction of a fighter-monoplane capable of a speed of 275 miles an hour is in contemplation; and when such machines will be available?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): High
performance fighter aircraft have been ordered and will probably be flying this year. It would not be in the public interest to disclose exact figures relating to the performance of these aircraft.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: In that case, why are references allowed in the Press to that particular machine?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that what appears in the Press is the responsibility of the Air Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

PILOTS' LICENCES.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the recommendation of the Gorell Committee on Civil Aviation has been considered to the effect that the United Kingdom representative on the International Commission for Air Navigation should press for a relaxation of the medical requirements for the renewal of private pilots' A licences; and whether this representative has been instructed accordingly?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Can I have an assurance from the Minister that the policy of the Air Ministry will be directed towards relaxation rather than the encroachment of bureaucracy?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir. That is exactly what is intended.

FOREIGN AIRCRAFT (BRITISH-DESIGNED ENGINES).

Mrs. TATE: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what percentage of foreign aircraft in service on European air lines were fitted with engines of British design in June, 1934?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have no precise information for the date mentioned, but it may be taken that rather more than 10 per cent. of the aircraft operated by foreign European regular air transport undertakings are fitted with engines of United Kingdom design.

Mrs. TATE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 14 per cent. of these lines are fitted with engines of American con-
struction or manufacture; and does he not think we should have a far greater opportunity of exporting to Europe than the United States?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it likely that we shall have that opportunity unless we have better technical people connected with the air? I know what I am talking about.

AIRCRAFT, ENGINES AND PARTS (EXPORTS).

Mrs. TATE: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the figures of British aeronautical exports for the years 1927, 1929, 1931 and 1934, respectively?

Sir P. SASSOON: The exports of aircraft, engines and spare parts from the United Kingdom in the calendar years 1927, 1929, 1931, and 1934 amounted to £1,085,000, £2,159,000, £1,860,000, and £1,921,000, respectively.

BRITISH AIR SERVICES (ACCIDENTS).

Mrs. TATE: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of passenger-miles flown by British domestic and foreign transport lines in the year 1934, and the number of passenger fatalities on those lines during that year?

Sir P. SASSOON: Over 29,000,000 passenger-miles were flown in 1934 on regular air transport services operated by United Kingdom undertakings at home and abroad. There were two fatal accidents, in which nine passengers lost their lives.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of that mileage was flown on subsidised and what proportion on unsubsidised lines?

Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.

AUSTRALIA (AIR MAIL POLICY).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement regarding the recent conferences in Australia on the subject of the Government's air mail policy?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am not in a position to make any statement beyond saying that a report of the conference has been received by telegram, which, while it gives no details, is generally encouraging.

ANGLO-SWISS SERVICE.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on the Anglo-Swiss air service between London and Bale, the Imperial Airways aircraft, owing to their comparative slowness, are scheduled to take 60 per cent. longer than the Swiss air liners; and whether he proposes to take any action?

Sir P. SASSOON: My Noble Friend does not propose to take any action in this matter.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House why, in the case of an ocean liner which is two or three knots slower than a foreign one, the Government must carry millions of pounds, whereas in this case, where we are 60 per cent. slower than the Swiss air liners, no action appears to be necessary?

Sir P. SASSOON: Imperial Airways services will be accelerated as time goes on.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PEDAL CYCLISTS (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. WEST: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport how many cyclists are killed annually; what proportion are killed during daylight hours; and how many of those killed during the hours of darkness carried a rear light?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret that the number of pedal cyclists killed annually on the roads has increased considerably during recent years from 691 in 1928 to 1,354 in 1933. The report on fatal road accidents during 1933 issued by my Department gives detailed analyses of fatal accidents to 1,324 pedal cyclists, of whom 70 per cent. were killed during the hours of daylight. Of the 397 cyclists who died as a result of accidents during the hours of dusk or darkness, 11 were reported to be carrying a red rear light.

Mr. WEST: Seeing that only a minority of the cyclists are killed in the hours of darkness and that a great many of those who are killed are killed in head-on collisions, is it not clear to the hon. Gentleman that the provision or absence of rear lights is of very minor importance in casualties to cyclists?

Captain STRICKLAND: Is it not a fact that the roads are far less used by cyclists at night and that that would account for the larger proportion of accidents by day?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think I answered the hon. Gentleman's question. Of the 397 cyclists who died as a result of accidents at night, 11 were reported to be carrying a rear light.

Mr. WEST: Has not the Minister understood the second part of my question, which was that of those 397 the great majority were killed in head-on collisions, and how could rear lights be of any use in those cases?

Lieut.-Colonel C. MacANDREW: Why should the cyclists object to carrying rear lights, when it is entirely for their own safety?

CIRCULAR.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that an official circular issued by the Ministry refers to the Government as "the National Government" and refers to the Minister by name; and whether his Department has been authorised to use the term "National" in designating the Government?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The circular of 5th February follows the language of, and makes quotations from, my speech at Birmingham in which I announced that the National Government had decided on a five-year plan for the roads.

Mr. WILMOT: Do the hon. Gentleman and His Majesty's Government regard it as a desirable practice to include a political appellation in a reference to the Government and repeated references to the particular Minister by name in official circulars issued to local authorities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With regard to the latter part of the question, of course that is quite traditional and essential. There is no other way of dealing with them. As regards the first part of the question, I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. WILMOT: Will the hon. Gentleman refer to his Department and ascertain whether it has not in fact been the practice of all previous Governments to refer to the Government as "His Majesty's Government" and to refer to
the Minister of Transport as "the Minister"?

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he really agrees that in an official document issued in the name of the Government we should depart from precedent and call it the Tory Government, or the Liberal Government, or the Labour Government, or the Socialist Government? Does he think it right that when an official document is issued the words "the National Government" instead of "His Majesty's Government" should be inserted in these circulars?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Not having had notice of that question, all I would say is that I was not aware that the practice to which the hon. Gentleman alludes ever was followed.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think the right hon. Gentleman does not do himself justice. He was present when we raised this question in reference to the White Paper on armaments, and the hon. Gentleman just now—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly for Question Time.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. This is a matter of constitutional usage, and are we not entitled to ask the Lord President, as representing the Government, whether this very bad practice shall be put an end to?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman must not do so by making a speech at Question Time.

Mr. LANSBURY: I apologise for attempting to make a speech on the subject, but the difficulty always is to know exactly how to put it. I think my last question was a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask him to answer it.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have not the least objection. It is obvious, I think, from what passed the other day that in that particular instance an error was committed—I admit it quite frankly—and it ought to have said "His Majesty's Government." There is no doubt at all about that, but I am not aware of its being the practice with regard to the issue of circulars, beyond what I have heard in the question to-day, of which I have no knowledge.

MOTOR DRIVING TESTS (EXAMINERS).

Mr. TINKER: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport what number of the 263 examiners chosen for motor tests came from Lancashire; and can he say if other appointments will be made?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The appointments of driving examiners have been made solely on merit and not on the basis of allotting a proportion of posts to candidates from particular localities. The information which the hon. Member desires could only be obtained by a special examination of the particulars submitted by all the persons appointed. I am not in a position to say at present whether an increase in the number of 263 will be required.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman a ware that there is a feeling of unrest about the appointments and that it would clear up the matter if he would issue a statement showing where they have been chosen from? I am not doubting that it has been done properly, but many people who have put in for this job complain that they have never had an interview, and they do not know who has been appointed.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will certainly give my hon. Friend any information that he may desire.

Mr. LEWIS JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there were 33,752 candidates in the country?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport how many of the 34,000 applicants for the 263 posts as examiners were unemployed when making their applications?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The application form contained the usual question as to present or last employment, but the answers did not indicate in every case whether an applicant was in employment at the time of application. It would now be impracticable to obtain the information.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether previous driving experience or holding of a driving licence in a British Dominion or Colony will enable future applicants for a motor driving licence to obtain such licence without passing the new official driving test?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is proposed that an applicant for a licence shall not be required to pass a driving test if he satisfies the licensing authority that he is not resident in Great Britain and holds a valid international driving permit or a driving licence issued to him by the competent authority of the country in which he resides.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Will this apply where there are not driving tests in the country concerned?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman add a temperance test in issuing licences?

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will circulate for the information of Members of the House a list of road casualties where death has resulted, and the verdict given by coroners in each case, during the years 1933 and 1934?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The report on fatal road accidents in 1933 issued by my Department contains an analysis of all fatal road accidents in that year, and of the causes to which they were attributed, based on returns made by the police authorities after the inquests. Returns on similar lines are being compiled for the current year.

TRAFFIC SIGNS.

Captain STRICKLAND: 31 and 32.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he will consider the issue of instructions to all responsible authorities that all traffic notices and signs shall be displayed at a height from the ground not exceeding six feet, in order to render them more readily visible to motorists and road users generally;
(2) whether he will encourage, so far as lies in his power, the general reduction to reasonable eye level of all signposts, particularly at cross-roads, and the display on them of road names in as large a type as is convenient?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Highway authorities have been instructed to have regard to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs. The form and dimensions of traffic signs are governed by regulations, which also follow generally the recommendations of this committee, except that on certain
signs place-names are allowed to be of somewhat larger dimensions than those which the committee recommended.

Mr. McKEAG: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of having signposts erected at a greater distance from cross-roads in order to obviate what is at present fatal hesitation and bewilderment at the actual cross-roads?

Mr. WILMOT: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter assumes primary importance in view of the impending introduction of the 30 miles an hour speed limit in certain areas?

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many of the local authorities will be unable, on or before the 18th March, to erect the traffic signs required by Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to indicate the beginning and the end of a length of road subject to the 30 miles an hour limit; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he, will delay the introduction of the speed limit until such time as the necessary signs are erected?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have caused inquiry to be made of local authorities and am assured that they are in a position to erect by the 18th March the signs necessary to denote the limits of operation of the speed limit. Even if there should be locally any temporary difficulties, I am sure that no one would wish to exploit them.

Sir W. BRASS: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of inquiries from the Royal Automobile Clubs all over the country, I have ascertained that practically none of these signs have been put up, and will he give an undertaking, if I can prove to him that that is the case, not to bring in the speed limit on the 18th?

Mr. SIMMONDS: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to maintain the present good relations between the police and the motoring public, he will give instructions that the offence of exceeding the new speed regulations should not lead to prosecution where the excess is but two or three miles per hour and is unaccompanied by specifically dangerous driving?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No, Sir. It is the duty of the police to enforce the law as enacted by Parliament, and I have no authority to instruct the police to refrain from prosecuting in the cases mentioned. Ample warning is being given of the procedure which will be followed by the police, and I hope that the motoring public, by their general observance of the intentions of Parliament, will render unnecessary any frequent recourse to proceedings on the part of the police.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Before proceeding with the deplorably provocative policy announced yesterday by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure an amicable co-operation with the motoring public, and thereby obtain greater results?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot agree that the policy of the Commissioner is provocative; I have no reason to suppose that it is so. I hope that the general motoring public will arrive at a contrary decision, and that they will help by cooperating with the police.

Mr. GROVES: Will the speed limit apply to the police as well as to the public?

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the independent evidence of two stopwatches will be necessary before a conviction for exceeding the speed limit is made?

STREET OBSTRUCTION (STATIONARY VEHICLES).

Mr. BURNETT: 55.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will, in order to restore Old Quebec Street and Bryanston Street as public highways for driving and foot traffic, request the police to direct vehicles calling at the hotels, flats, and stores fronting to Oxford Street to use Oxford Street daily after 10 a.m. as standing space or, alternatively, to notify the owners of the hotels, flats, and stores in Oxford Street that they must provide their own garage space for customers and tradesmen, in order to abate the nuisance caused by depriving the general public of their rights to the public highway?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me
that the police have instructions not to allow vehicles to stand in the streets referred to in such manner as to render passage impracticable. The suggestion that waiting vehicles should be directed to Oxford Street would not only involve an infringement of the regulations made by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, which prohibit waiting in Oxford Street between 12 noon and 7 p.m., but would make conditions in the neighbourhood worse and might even result in a complete stoppage of the traffic in Oxford Street itself. As regards the alternative suggestion made by my hon. Friend, there is no power to require frontagers be provide garage accommodation, but it is most desirable that drivers should make full use of existing garages and, in this particular neighbourhood, there is garage accommodation close at hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. JAMES'S PARK.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the reason for the unsightly iron pipes which have for many years projected above the stone balustrade at the western end of the ornamental water in St. James's Park between Buckingham Palace and Wellington Barracks; and whether they can now be removed?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The pipes were part of a proposed lighting scheme in connection with the Queen Victoria memorial. Alternative lighting arrangements were eventually decided upon, and the pipes are not now necessary. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to this, and I am giving instructions for the projecting parts to be removed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MILK SUPPLY SCHEME.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many authorities in England and Wales are not yet supplying milk in schools, and which are they?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): According to the latest information in the possession of the Board 130 local education authorities
out of 316 in England and Wales do not themselves at present make provision for the supply of milk to children in public elementary schools under Sections 82–84 of the Education Act, 1921. Twenty-one of these authorities have submitted proposals for the provision of milk which have either been approved or are under consideration. In addition to the supply of milk under those Sections, voluntary schemes for the provision of milk on payment are in operation in some of the schools in nearly all areas, but I am afraid that it is not at the moment possible to say definitely in which areas, if any, no milk is being supplied in the schools. I am having the matter examined and I am asking for returns from the schools showing the position at the end of March.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the policy of the Board to see that all children in all schools are supplied with milk, and, if that be so, is it possible for the Board to take the initiative and see that that policy is implemented; is it also possible for the hon. Gentleman to find out whether the voluntary organisations are adequate for supplying milk in schools?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: In Circular 1437 issued by the Board last September local authorities were specifically asked to encourage milk schemes. As regards voluntary organisations, there has been an immense increase. A year ago about 900,000 children were getting milk under voluntary schemes, and to-day the figure is well over 2,000,000, and I hope it will approach 3,000,000.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not a fact that many school children are prevented from getting milk because of the Medical Officers of Health and their fads about pasteurisation?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to rural areas where children are not securing milk largely because the milk is being transferred from their areas to industrial areas?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I will look into that.

Major COLFOX: Is not one of the chief reasons why children in rural areas are not able to get milk that the medical officers insist on pasteurised milk, which is not available in rural districts?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman advertise what a wonderful thing the Government have done in bringing milk to thousands of children throughout the country?

CONTINUATION CLASSES.

Miss CAZALET: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many employers have established compulsory continuation classes for their juvenile employés?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Five firms conduct day continuation classes for their juvenile employés which are recognised and aided by the Board, and, of these, four make attendance a definite requirement. In addition, certain local education authorities provide classes for the employés of particular firms, who may be required by their employers to attend, and it is known that some firms conduct classes for their employés though the Board's recognition of these classes has not been sought.

Miss CAZALET: Are continuation classes on the increase on the whole?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am not sure; I had better have notice of that question.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is there any chance of the Government making them compulsory?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE.

STAFF (PAY AND PENSIONS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 39.
asked the Attorney-General when it is intended to restore the cuts imposed on the uniformed staff in the Royal Courts of Justice and upon the ushers attached to the High Court of Justice and the Courts of Appeal; whether he will consider an up ward revision of the scales of pay of these men in view of the present low rates of remuneration; and whether steps will be taken to provide an adequate pension for these servants of the State?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am advised that the uniformed staff and ushers in the Royal Courts of Justice will be treated in the same way as other public servants in the matter of the restoration of the emergency cuts. There is no reason for considering a special upward revision of pay in their case having regard to the fact
that their scales of pay are based on the rates generally applicable to analogous grades employed in the public service. As regards the last part of the question, the attendant staff in the Royal Courts of Justice is organised in three grades, of which the two higher are pensionable in accordance with the terms of the Superannuation Acts, the members of the lower grade being eligible for promotion to the higher grades. I am informed that there are no grounds for modifying these arrangements which are in conformity with those in force in the case of messenger and attendant staffs generally in the public service.

SHORTHAND WRITERS.

Mr. LOFTUS: 40.
asked the Attorney-General if any decision has yet been taken as to the appointment of official shorthand writers for the King's Bench Division; and, if so, whether the scheme will be limited to the King's Bench Division or extended to the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal and the Official Referee's Court?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor informs me that he is not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject of the proposals to which my hon. Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (PRINCES' CRITICISMS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now inform the House as to the nature of the fundamental objections expressed by the Princes of India against certain of the provisions of the Government of India Bill; and whether he has been in formed of the protest made by the Princes against the Bill being proceeded with without waiting for the Princes' criticism thereon?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I hope to issue in the course of the next few days a White Paper giving the text of the criticisms of the Bill communicated by the Princes and their Ministers to the Viceroy and the comments of His Majesty's Government on these criticisms.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can my right hon. Friend state whether the reports which
have appeared in the Press of the speeches of the Princes are not substantially correct?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. I am not responsible for the proceedings of confidential meetings at which I have no locus standi.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Does my right hon. Friend contemplate an early Debate on this new White Paper?

Sir S. HOARE: No, I do not.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES, BRECHIN (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. LEONARD: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the petition of the in habitants of Brechin protesting at the lack of suitable accommodation for cases of scarlet fever and diphtheria; and if he can state what arrangements are being made by the Angus County Council to meet the needs and convenience of this part of the country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Letters on the subject have been received by the Department of Health. The matter is under active consideration by the county council, and the department have already arranged to send a medical officer and an architect to consult with local officials as to the extent and location of any additional accommodation required.

HOUSING, DUNDEE.

Miss HORSBRUGH: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the programme of house building for slum clearance is being retarded in Dundee owing to a shortage of bricklayers; and what steps he pro poses to take to ensure the building of the necessary number of houses in a reasonable time?

Sir G. COLLINS: I regret to say that there is a shortage of bricklayers in Dundee. The Department of Health have for some time been taking all possible steps in conjunction with the local authority officials, the Ministry of Labour and the Bricklayers' Union with
a view to securing additional men. Meanwhile the contractor for one of the building schemes has promised to arrange for the transfer to Dundee of men from other schemes which he is completing within the next few weeks.

Mr. WEST: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this shortage could be made up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)?

FISHERY CRUISERS.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any decision has yet been made as to the number of new fishery cruisers that will be built for patrolling the Scottish fishery areas; and, if so, whether he can' give any particulars as to tonnage, speed and where they are to be built?

Sir G. COLLINS: The intention is to build three more cruisers. An order for the large cruiser will be placed next week and it will be built in a Scottish shipyard. Fifteen tenders were invited. Its length is 130 feet and its gross tonnage about 280. It is anticipated that tenders for the small cruiser will be invited this month. In the case of the cruiser of intermediate size great difficulties have been experienced in securing the necessary speed and this matter is still under review.

Mr. MACLEAN: With regard to the cruiser of intermediate speed, where there is some difficulty in regard to the speed, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that before deciding upon the vessel the same mistake is not made as was made in the case of the "Rona," which was sunk only the other week?

Sir G. COLLINS: In view of former experience, we are taking infinite trouble on this occasion to secure a proper design.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Socialist party are now asking for an increase in armaments against British trawlers?

Sir G. COLLINS: These vessels are for more peaceful purposes.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: But are they not actually armed?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the chartered drifter which was recently lost in Burgha Skerry is going to be replaced?

Sir G. COLLINS: I should require notice of that question.

Captain BALFOUR: Are the tenders for the new craft to be confined to Scottish shipyards, or will they be open to English shipyards?

Sir G. COLLINS: They will be open to competition and the lowest tender will receive the order.

Mr. MACLEAN: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the unsatisfactory fishery cruiser "Rona" was towed to and sunk in the Minch; and whether it is intended to finish the 60-year-old "Vigilant" in the same manner and, if so, when?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The "Vigilant" will be replaced by the large cruiser which is being ordered as mentioned in my previous reply. The necessary steps will then be taken to secure the best possible price for the "Vigilant."

Mr. MACLEAN: Considering that the Government are offering a large sum of money to other owners of ships for a scrap-and-build policy, why do the Fishery Board entertain the hope that they will get a price for a vessel which was second-hand when they bought it and is now 60 years of age?

Sir G. COLLINS: We expect to get the best possible price for anything we have to offer for sale.

PRISON OFFICER'S CLAIM, PERTH.

Mr. MACLEAN: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a claim for £16 by an officer at Perth Prison for lodging allowance and damage to furniture, during the alterations to his quarters, has been entirely refused; that the officer was refused permission to call in the local medical officer of health to see the conditions under which he was living, namely in a three-roomed house with a family of five, and structural alterations taking place in each room; is he satisfied that this officer has been fairly treated; and
could the Prisons Department provide alternative accommodation during the alterations?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part no such application was received by the Prisons Department and in any event it would appear to be unnecessary as there is a medical officer resident in the prison. There was no alternative accommodation available for the occupants of quarters undergoing structural improvements; and while I regret the unavoidable inconvenience occasioned, I am satisfied that the circumstances do not justify treating this officer exceptionally in respect of compensation.

Mr. MACLEAN: Surely an officer who has to go outside and pay for additional lodgings while his own place, which belongs to the Government, is being repaired, ought not to be called upon to bear the expense of the alternative accommodation which he has to find?

Sir G. COLLINS: My information is that this officer chose to leave his accommodation, which was being repaired, and went elsewhere. I agree that if he had stayed in his old accommodation he would have been inconvenienced, but I fail to see that it was necessary for him to go while these structural alterations were being undertaken.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the alterations were of such a nature as to cause inconvenience both to the officer and his family to such an extent that they could not reside there, surely the Department ought to find the necessary alternative accommodation for him, or at least pay the amount that he had to pay to secure alternative accommodation?

Sir G. COLLINS: I cannot agree that the accommodation was completely unsuitable. It was certainly inconvenient, but not sufficiently inconvenient as to justify the State in paying him this money.

Mr. MACLEAN: I shall put down another question on this matter.

GREENOCK PROVIDENT BANK.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Greenock Provident
Bank have an accumulating number of balances which have been dormant for a number of years, in some cases over 100 years; and whether he will take legislative powers to call upon banks, local authorities, corporations, and companies with whom the public invest to make returns of unclaimed moneys standing to the credit of persons whose whereabouts have been unknown for a period of at least seven years?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have no information on the subject mentioned in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

PERTH PRISON (CRIMINAL LUNATIC DEPARTMENT).

Miss HORSBRUGH (for Lord SCONE): 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when legislation will be introduced to enable accommodation to be provided for criminal lunatics in substitution for the criminal lunatic department in Perth prison?

Sir G. COLLINS: A Bill to authorise the building of a new Criminal Lunatic Asylum will be introduced in another place to-morrow and it is hoped that it will become law this Session. When the necessary powers are obtained the asylum will be built on land near Carstairs.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will the State institution for defectives also be replaced?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, the institution for the defectives will be erected on the same land.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER POLLUTION.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 45.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Water Pollution Research Board of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has now discovered a remedy for river pollution by milk and cheese factories; and whether he will make a statement?

Mr. BALDWIN: Laboratory experiments have been carried out for the Water Pollution Research Board during the past two years at the Rothamsted Experimental Station into problems of effluents from dairies and milk products factories. They have indicated promising
methods of preventing river pollution by these waste effluents. Arrangements have now been made, with the financial co-operation of the milk industry, to carry these laboratory experiments to the commercial scale. These large scale experiments will be put in hand as rapidly as possible. It is hoped that they will supply the remedy mentioned in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

POLAND (TARIFF REDUCTIONS).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how the revised duties on 200 articles exported from the United Kingdom to Poland under the recently concluded trade agreement with that country compare with the duties on the same class of articles in operation in 1930?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The trade agreement provides for the reduction of 340 rates of duty in the Polish tariff. Of these reductions, about 60 per cent. are to levels below those in force at the end of 1930.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether this agreement is more favourable or less favourable than the other agreements made by His Majesty's Government?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is a comparison which I hardly think I ought to be asked to draw. Undoubtedly it is a very favourable agreement.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the 60 per cent. represents 60 per cent. of the bulk or 60 per cent. of the number of articles?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The question on the Paper related to articles, and I have answered it on the basis of articles.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Could not a supplementary reply be given indicating value or bulk?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Such a question could not possibly be answered without notice.

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that imports into the United Kingdom from countries with which trade
agreements have been concluded have been 50 per cent. more than the exports from the United Kingdom to these countries; and, seeing that the essential feature of these agreements was the regulation of the balance of payments, whether he will say what other steps he proposes to take to attain that declared purpose?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am aware that our imports from the countries with which we have concluded trade agreements still exceed to a considerable extent our exports to those countries. I would, however, point out that our trade with these countries is, as a result of the agreements, developing in a very satisfactory manner in many respects and that imports from them consist to a considerable extent of raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured. My right hon. Friend does not consider that at the present time further steps on new lines are called for in connection with the agreements.

GRANITE.

Mr. BURNETT: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the amount and value of the imports of manufactured granite for the last available six months and for the corresponding six months of the previous year?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The total imports of manufactured granite into this country amounted to 48,132 tons, valued at £214,961, during the six months ended January, 1935, and to 40,313 tons, valued at £185,153, during the six months ended January, 1934.

KERBSTONES.

Mr. BURNETT: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the amount and value of the imports of kerbstones from Mysore for the last available 12 months and for the corresponding 12 months of the previous year?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Separate particulars of the imports in the United Kingdom of kerbstones from Mysore are not available, but I am having a statement prepared showing particulars of the imports of granite setts and pavement curbs consigned from British India as a whole, which I will send to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

EMPIRE TRADE.

Mr. LOFTUS: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the net favourable or unfavourable balance of trade for the latest year for which figures are readily available between the United Kingdom and Australia, Canada and New Zealand, respectively, after allowing for receipt of interest and dividends and the issue of new loans, apart from conversion loans?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In the absence of reliable information regarding the invisible items, I regret that I am unable to furnish my hon. Friend with this information.

Mr. LOFTUS: Are not these figures absolutely necessary as a foundation for a discussion of inter-Imperial trade, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman therefore make efforts to obtain them.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH (SCARLET FEVER, DENHAM).

Mr. THORNE: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a report from his inspector in connection with the scarlet fever outbreak at Den- ham, Bucks; if he can state the number of children affected; whether adjacent schools have been closed on account of the epidemic; and what action is being taken to prevent the outbreak spreading?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has not yet received a final report on the cause and extent of the outbreak from his medical officer, but he is advised that the steps taken should check any spread. If the hon. Member will put down a further question next week, my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to give him full information.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is there any danger of this outbreak of scarlet fever in South Bucks spreading to West Ham?

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS ACTS (SEATS FOR ASSISTANTS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 56.
asked the Home Secretary why there is no apparent compliance with the requirements of the
legislation directing that seats should be provided for young women assistants employed in the large London stores; how many inspectors are employed on the enforcement of the legislation; whether he will circulate information as to the number of prosecutions under the Act, the number of convictions, and the penalties imposed; and whether inspectors are or will be instructed not to go round the shops on their inspection in the company of the manager or other representative of the shopkeeper?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The administration of the Shops Acts rests not with me but with the local authorities. I have, however, made inquiry of the authorities responsible in London, and I am informed that there is no evidence of any general failure to provide seats for female shop assistants. I am informed also that there are 20 full time and eight part time shops inspectors in London, and that two prosecutions were taken during 1934 in that area for failure to provide seats, convictions being obtained in each case and fines of £1 and 10s. respectively imposed. As regards the last part of the question, I am bringing the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the local authorities concerned.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not only a problem of providing seats for female assistants but opportunities for them to sit upon them.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman also realise that a fine is absolutely inadequate, and will he please see that the inspectors do not let the shopkeepers know that they are going round before they inspect? Otherwise, it is quite useless.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the report of Colonel Allan, inspector of constabulary in the western division, to the effect that more liberal use of the birch-rod would be beneficial to juvenile offenders; and whether, in view of the policy of the Home Office, which is opposed to birching as useless, he will take steps to counteract the effect of this part of Colonel Allan's report?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The inspector's advice appears to me to be intended for parents and therefore has no bearing on the work of the juvenile courts in dealing with offenders against the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRANE ACCIDENT, EMSWORTH.

Mr. THORNE: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with the crane accident at Emsworth, Hants, when one man was killed and another had his hand amputated by the machinery operating the crane; whether the crane was carrying more than its registered load; and on what date was the machinery last examined?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will have inquiry made and communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SPECIAL AREAS (SCHEMES).

Mr. MARTIN: 61
asked the Minister of Labour (1) what procedure has to be followed by the commissioner for special areas in considering schemes put forward by local authorities; and what is the extent of the control exercised by the Government over the Special Areas Fund;
(2) how many schemes calculated to find work have been started with the assistance of the commissioner for the special areas in England and Wales;
(3) how much money has actually been spent out of the Special Areas Fund in the special area of Durham County and Tyneside?

Mr. R. T. EVANS: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour what schemes have been approved by the commissioner for special areas in Wales and Monmouthshire; the total cost of such schemes; the aggregate of grants to be made from the Special Areas Fund; and the sources from which the remainder of the cost is to be met?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): In the Debate on 4th March, my right hon. Friend indicated briefly the action which the Commissioner for Special Areas in England and
Wales is taking, and mentioned some of the schemes which he has decided to assist. There is at present nothing that I can add to this statement.

Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to have any further information to give the House on this matter?

Mr. HUDSON: The Commissioner has issued a circular to the local authorities and to the Press, and I have no doubt that he will continue that practice.

Mr. MARTIN: Is there no method of finding out about any particular district at any particular time?

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member will put down a question in due course, I shall be able to give him further particulars.

Mr. H. JOHNSTONE: Will the Minister consider the propriety of issuing a report from time to time from his Department on the activities of the Commissioner either to this House, to the Press, or somewhere else in order that Members and the public may know precisely what the Commissioner is doing?

Mr. HUDSON: I will consider that matter.

Captain HEILGERS: Has the Commissioner made any recommendation for the erection of beet-sugar factories in depressed areas?

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state what will be the approximate date of the second appointed day in connection with the work of the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir.

BRITISH GUIANA (ELECTIONS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what report he has received from the acting Governor of British Guiana on corruption in recent elections in the colony; and what action he proposes to take thereon?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received a despatch from the acting Governor of British Guiana in which he reports that the Colonial Government is considering certain recommendations made by the judges of the supreme court arising out of the trial of recent election petitions in regard to the working of the law and regulations on the subject. I am asking that the Governor's recommendations thereon should be furnished as soon as possible.

Mr. ROBINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the recent elections an unseated candidate was immediately re-elected, and will he press for an extension of the principles of the Corrupt Practices Act to British Guiana?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like to see what the judges have said and what the Governor's recommendations are. I think it is certainly worth bearing in mind that one penalty of corrupt practices well worthy of consideration is that the unseated member should not have the right to stand again at once.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee on the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill and on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Herring Industry Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 48.

Division No. 96.]
AYES.
[3.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bernays, Robert
Burnett, John George


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Blindell, James
Butler, Richard Austen


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Bossom, A. C.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Boulton, W. W.
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Apsley, Lord
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Assheton, Ralph
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brass, Captain Sir William
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Balniel, Lord
Broadbent, Colonel John
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rathhone, Eleanor


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Colman, N. C. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cook, Thomas A.
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rickards, George William


Cooper, A. Duff
Kimball, Lawrence
Robinson, John Roland


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Knight, Holford
Ross, Ronald D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Crooks, J. Smedley
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cross, R. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Davison, Sir William Henry
Liddall, Walter S.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Denville, Alfred
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Donner, P. W.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Duggan, Hubert John
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Eady, George H.
Mabane, William
Somerset, Thomas


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
MacAndrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
MaeAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
McKeag, William
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stevenson, James


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stones, James


Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Storey, Samuel


Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Strauss, Edward A.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Martin, Thomas B.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Goff, Sir Park
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Graves, Marjorie
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Greene, William P. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Grimston, R. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thompson, Sir Luke


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hanbury, Cecil
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hartland, George A.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Patrick, Colin M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hornby, Frank
Pearson, William G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peat, Charles U.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Petherick, M.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)



Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir



Ramsden, Sir Eugene
George Penny.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Kirkwood, David


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Leonard, William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Logan, David Gilbert


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Cleary, J. J.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
McGovern, John


Daggar, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Davits, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir William
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Maxton, James


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Parkinson, John Allen




Rea, Walter Russell
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
West, F. R.
Wilmot, John


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
White, Henry Graham



Thorne, William James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [NINTH DAY—Progress, 12th March],

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 38.—(Rules of procedure.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 25, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).—[Colonel Wedgwood.]

In line 19, leave out paragraph (i).—[Mr. Cocks.]

In line 23, leave out paragraph (ii).—[Colonel Wedgwood.]

The CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) to move his first Amendment, may I suggest to the Committee that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), and also the other Amendment following in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? I think we might take one discussion on these three Amendments, and the Questions can be put separately if need be.

3.48 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 25, line 7, to leave out paragraph (c).
I certainly think that it would be much simpler to discuss all these questions on this Amendment. Of course, the questions raised are slightly different. We are discussing what shall be discussed in the Federal Legislature, and paragraph (c) prohibits the discussion and the asking of questions on any subject which affects the Indian States. Whether it is discussion or the asking of questions that is prohibited seems to be immaterial, though a stronger case can be made out for prohibiting discussion than for prohibiting the asking of questions. The paragraph goes on to say lower down:
unless the Governor-General in his discretion is satisfied that the matter affects Federal interests or affects a British subject.
We were hoping to add there "or British Indian subject." The point in each case is exactly the same, and it crops up again in paragraph (d, i), which refers
to the discussion of any matter affecting relations between the Governor-General and a native Prince. In all these cases the question is whether the Indian Assembly, which represents in a way, however curiously, the whole of India, is to be allowed to criticise or to ask questions about anything which occurs in the Indian States? The Indian States are represented in that assembly, over-represented according to their numbers, and yet that assembly is handicapped by not being allowed to raise any question of ill-treatment of any Indian in the Indian States. The Committee realise that in these Indian States you have absolute rule by the rulers. In half a dozen cases they have some sort of representative institutions with no responsibility and no power, but in the vast majority you have the direct autocratic rule of the Princes, with complete control over the lives, property and liberty of all their subjects, control even greater than was that of the German Princes over their subjects in the eighteenth century. Hitherto, if there has been any gross abuse of their power or any gross insult to humanity, it has been possible for the Governor-General to intervene and to change the crowned head, or, by means of the Resident in that State, to humanise practice and put an end to the worst abuses. The worst trouble comes from the inhabitants of the State being unable to pay rent to their Princes for feudal lands. Troubles will be cropping up almost daily in some of these native States.
If this paragraph goes through it will be impossible in the Indian Assembly to raise any question about what is going on. It will be impossible to discuss the rent strike, or the putting down of the rent strike, or the gaoling of any person in that State, or, as I read it, the imprisonment or deprivation of a British Indian subject who may have been in the State or may have property in it. There are many cases—I will not go into them; There is the case of the agitators Mohammed Ali and Shankat, of subjects of Indian States having their property taken away by the India rajah. That was political, but in most of these cases it is not political, but a case of "so and so is unduly rich, let us get some of his money back by various means." Is there to be no redress before the Federal Assembly for natives in the territories
who are treated unjustly, for the British Indian who may be trading with that State, and no redress in fact for even a British subject in the State unless the Governor-General sanctions the inquiry or discussion?
It seems to me that we are sacrificing too much in order to get the Princes into this Federation. This is a concession to them. The people who object to questions being asked in the Assembly about the treatment of the native States are the Indian Princes themselves, obviously. We are washing our hands like Pilate of anything that may happen inside those native States. There will still be the control by the Governor-General as in the past, but the Assembly itself must not raise the matter. We can raise the subject here in Parliament, but in the Assembly they cannot. It is true that it was not possible in the old Assembly to raise these issues, and that in the Assembly which is now sitting no such question can be raised or answered, but in the new Assembly, where the States are represented, it would be the very negation of the idea of self-government to exclude from the purview of the Assembly representing that Federation every possibility of remedying injustice in the native States, while in British India itself not only can any British Indian raise a question and criticise the administration but every representative of the Princes in the Federation can likewise criticise the conduct of affairs in British India. Anything so one-sided was never conceived before, but it is one of the further sacrifices we have to make, and I ask the Committee before they sanction this Clause to realise what a price of liberty England and India are paying in order to bring the Princes into a Federation which no one wants, not even the Princes.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: Is it desired that each point should be raised separately and that the Secretary of State for India should reply to each point, or should there be a general discussion on all these Amendments, allowing the Secretary of State to wind-up at the end?

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the most convenient course would be to have the three Amendments discussed together. They all deal with what questions may or may not be discussed and
possibly they may have a bearing on one another, and, if the Government and the Committee agree, it would probably be convenient to have the whole discussion on them, and then I could put the questions separately, if desired.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name—

The CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member misunderstands me. There is now before us the Amendment moved by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman which I have put to the Committee, and on that Amendment it will be possible to discuss the subject matter of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), and also the subject of the other Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I will ask the hon. Member for Broxtowe later on to move his Amendment formally.

Mr. COCKS: I understand. I wish to raise the point which is embodied in the Amendment which I shall subsequently move. We attach considerable importance to the Amendment, and I will state the reasons. It will be remembered that we have already decided that foreign affairs should be a reserved subject and should be in charge of a counsellor, and under Clause 21 a counsellor has the right to attend the meetings of either Chamber and to take part in the discussions but not to vote. I would point out that such a legislature is not a weak and irresponsible assembly, but, as the Under-Secretary used the phrase last night, it is to be a strong central body. It is to consist of the principalities and powers of India. There will sit there the representatives of the Princes, and from British India, the great bankers, the great industrialists, the great lawyers, and the great landlords—all with a stake in the country. It will be an extremely conservative assembly. A Parliament consisting of the squires of England in the eighteenth century would, by comparison, be a Bolshevist assembly.
Therefore, as I say, there is no danger of irresponsible discussions taking place. It seems to me that a body representing India should have the right to discuss the relations of India with other Powers of the world, and in particular Asiatic Powers. As I have put before this Committee previously, and as everybody
knows, there is the prospect of a great menace in India in another Power seeking to assume the leadership of the East against the West. Surely our idea is that India in future should present a barrier against a force of that description and that there should arise in India a strong national feeling to be able to say, in the words of the famous French Marshal, "They shall not pass." That feeling of nationality should be developed, and it is right that they should be allowed reasonable discussion as to the relations of their country with such a nation, for example, as Japan. It is absurd that these people, who will be greatly affected by any troubles in the future, should be gagged, and that that particular discussion should be barred, so that they will have no chance of educating themselves or getting information from the counsellor on such points.
Then look at the position of the counsellor. There is to be a counsellor in charge of these external questions. He is allowed to go into and speak in the Chamber on any subject—on child marriage, temple entry, land legislation and finance. He can speak on any subject about which he knows nothing, or may know nothing, but the very subject on which he is an expert, foreign relations, he is not allowed to say a word without the consent of the Governor-General in his discretion, which means without the consent of the Secretary of State for India. He can butt in on every possible topic, but on the very subject in which he is a specialist he is not allowed to say anything. It may be said that awkward questions might be asked. They are sometimes asked in this Chamber, but Ministers are very skilful in evading awkward questions, and I have no doubt that in India there will be a counterpart of our able, efficient Foreign Secretary in evading awkward issues. It is always open to the counsellor to say, "The answer to that question is against the public interest." As I say, there are many questions which ought to be asked, and many discussions which should arise dealing with the relationship of India with other Asiatic Powers and countries and influences which, it is very desirable, they should be allowed to discuss. I would appeal to the Secretary of State in this matter. I said something about it yesterday, when I asked him to listen
sometimes to the voice of reason on this side of the Committee. I sometimes think that when he feels inclined to yield the Secretary of State suddenly pulls himself together and says to himself, "Dan-ton—no weakness." If he thinks of doing that this afternoon, I would remind him that those words of Danton were spoken on the way to the guillotine.

4.5 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I would like to ask the Secretary of State why we do not find in the Bill that method of dealing with the particular difficulty raised by the amendment which was suggested in the report of the Joint Select Committee? It is rather the other side of the problem, and I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising it, but the Joint Select Committee suggested that there should be a committee similar to that which relates to Scotland in this House, and consists of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies with 10 or 15 other Members, and that any matter referring only to British India should be referred to that committee, so that the Princes should not be allowed to take part in a discussion upon it. We find no provision of that sort in the Bill as presented to us. The result of the present arrangement is surely very curious and anomalous. I do not want to repeat the arguments used by previous speakers, but take this instance. Let us suppose that there is an insurrection in a native State, and it is necessary to send British Indian troops, paid for by British Indian taxpayers, to uphold the ruler if his subjects do not appreciate the benefits of his rule. Yet the representatives of British India in the Legislature will not be allowed so much as to ask a question relating to the origin of the disaffection in that State.
That, surely, is a curious case of a Federal Assembly which follows at once the principle of representation without taxation and taxation without representation. The Princes can take part in questions of taxation upon British India, although they will not have to pay part of that taxation, but where taxation falls upon British India in helping the paramount power to interfere with affairs in a native State, then the representatives of British India have no power of criticising the expenditure for which they are taxed. It is surely a very curious anomaly and, so far as one side of it is
concerned—the ability of the representatives of Indian States to interfere in British Indian affairs—one would have supposed it might be met by the very proposal to which the Joint Select Committee gave its approval in their report, namely, to refer matters affecting British India solely to a special committee. I think that this whole question is as good an instance as we could have of the anomaly created by the Government dealing with a country 6,000 miles away.
Suppose such a situation arose in this country, and it was suggested that troops should be sent from Scotland to put down an insurrection in a part of this country, and we were not allowed in the British House of Commons even to ask a question about it or discuss it. Think of the outcry that would arise from all sides of the House, and not least from the Liberal benches. All the canons of democratic government would be at once appealed to. Yet because many Members of the House are sincerely and genuinely desirous to promote this Bill, and to put nothing in its way, because they believe it is a step towards self-government for India, we have heard hardly a word about it, and the Liberal Members appear to give their hearty support to the proposal as it stands in the Bill. I suggest that it is very gravely unsatisfactory that those subjects of the Indian States who are in a sense subjects of Great Britain have no right to appeal to the paramount power although—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady has been so unfortunate on previous occasions that I have been very unwilling to interrupt her, but perhaps I may call her attention to the fact that the Amendment to which her remarks appear to be addressed, namely, to leave out paragraph (c) is one which prohibits
the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any matter connected with any Indian State … unless the Governor-General in his discretion is satisfied that the matter affects Federal interests or affects a British subject.
I just mention that because I must endeavour to keep the discussion a little more narrowly in order than, I am afraid, I have done.

Miss RATHBONE: I will not deal with the subject any further. I have said all I wish to say, and I am sorry if I have transgressed the Rules of Order,
but it is very difficult to observe them in these matters where there are so many Clauses in the Bill which, so to speak, are interdependent. With regard to paragraph (c), to which you have called my attention, might it not be that the Governor-General would hardly hold that a matter affected federal interests if it merely affected subjects of Indian States, and British India—

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Lady not to discuss anything which has to do with the relations between an Indian Prince and his subjects. That does not come in here at all.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg your pardon, Sir Dennis. I thought that as the Amendment was to leave out the words
prohibiting the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any matter connected with any Indian State 
questions about subjects of the Indian States might be such a matter; but, of course, I obey your Ruling, and will say no more, though I think the Committee must all feel the curious anomaly that does arise when, to use the vivid phrase of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the Princes are allowed to sprawl over the whole Legislature as it affects British India, and representatives of British India may not, in return, so much as ask a question about what is going on in a State although what is going on there may involve them in additional expenditure in order that they may intervene in the affairs of the State.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The remarks of the hon. Lady, I think, were not very closely related, because she chose the example of federal troops—to use a convenient description—being used to restore order in Indian States, which might involve the Federation in certain additional expenditure, and clearly would affect Federal interests. It seems to me a case where the Governor-General in his discretion would be compelled to permit discussion as to why the troops were used for that purpose. It seems a most unfortunate example to select.

Miss RATHBONE: I think it is a very important point to clear up, and I wish the Secretary of State would give us his verdict, because the other day we were told that intervention in affairs of the Indian States was purely a matter
between the paramount power and the States, and did not affect the Federal Government at all, and it came out yesterday that it did affect—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady is again taking the opportunity of dealing with the one thing which I most definitely ruled out of order.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I was dealing with the specific case raised by the hon. Lady where federal troops went into a State to restore order. Clearly there you get a case which affects British India, and, therefore, comes within the qualification contained in the second half of paragraph (c). It is difficult to visualise the Governor-General in those circumstances, when something might come along which might later on affect the budget, saying to them: "You must not discuss it." The point which the hon. Member has raised is satisfactorily covered by the discretion as it stands. What disturbs me is that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should move this Amendment at all. It seems to me that his occupation in writing the history of parliamentarians has led him to forget some of the principles of Parliamentary procedure. Our principle here is very clearly established. We cannot interrogate Ministers on matters with which they are not concerned. It would clearly be out of order to hand in a question to the Secretary of State for the Dominions asking why the Canadian Government has done something or another to a particular Canadian subject of His Majesty, a person not in any way domiciled in this country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I agree that that would be impossible, but this is a question of the use of British troops in a State in order to prevent some trouble there. Surely, the person to whom a question on that subject should be addressed would be the Minister for War.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not present when I endeavoured to explain that point, arising out of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). If you use troops, then a British federal interest is affected, and there the Governor-General in his discretion could
give permission for that to be a subject of interrogation, and that I should think any sensible Governor-General would do. Therefore, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, like the point raised by the hon. Lady, is not a pertinent one. You cannot address questions to a Minister in respect of something for which he is not responsible to the Assembly, and for which the Assembly is not responsible. That is fundamental. Mr. Speaker frequently calls us to order if even in a supplementary question we address a question to a Minister on something which is outside his purview. It may be true that there are councillors in the Assembly who in another capacity are dealing with these matters. For instance, I understand that the Secretary of State for India is interested in the Lawn Tennis Association, but we could not ask him questions here about that. It is conceivable, if it were permissible under our Constitution that he might hold some other offices of profit under the Crown, but we might be entirely debarred from asking questions about them, unless we altered the Constitution. He might have a great variety of outside interests, paid or unpaid, if our Constitution permitted it, but that would not allow us to ask questions about what I would call outside interests. It seems to me fundamental that we should not be allowed to ask Ministers fishing questions about things for which in the Assembly they have no responsibility and for which the Assembly itself has no responsibility. It would degrade the whole purpose of Parliament if it were allowed to concern itself with things outside its purview.

4.20 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Before we deal with the points raised in the two Amendments, let us disabuse ourselves of certain ideas which have nothing to do with either of them. First of all, let me say that, although I do not resent it, I object to the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that we, like Pilate, are disinteresting ourselves in the affairs of anybody in India. He will forgive me for saying that that was an unworthy and unjustifiable observation. We are just as interested in the Indian States as he is. We are just as interested in the populations of those States as he
is, and it is altogether unjustifiable to say that we are behaving like Pilate, and are indifferent to interests that are just as much in our minds and hearts as they are in his.
In the second place, let us disabuse our minds of the illusion that the Parliament we are discussing is a unitary Parliament, like this Parliament. It is not. It is a federal Parliament. There is all the difference in the world, as I have said more than once in these debates, between a unitary legislature dealing with the whole field of government and a federal legislature dealing with a definitely delimited field of duties. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that law and order neither so far as British India is concerned nor so far as the India of the States is concerned is a federal subject. It is a provincial subject so far as British India is concerned and it is a State subject so far as the India of the Indian States is concerned. That being so, there can be no justification whatever for questions such as he suggests being put in the Federal Assembly. It would be outside the purview of the Federal Assembly. It would, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said, be outside the responsibility of any federal Minister. There can, therefore, be no justification for accepting an Amendment of this kind.
There is, as the Committee is aware, a proviso that the Governor-General can allow a discussion when the discussion is within the orbit of the federal field, and when he thinks that it does not go outside that federal field, and I am certain that the Governor-General would allow a discussion of that kind. For instance, such cases as have been mentioned, cases of the treatment of a British Indian citizen in the States, that is the kind of question that undoubtedly would be discussed. Further than that there would be no justification, quite apart from the question whether the Indian States are better or worse administered than the British-India Provinces. Let me say once again that these general condemnations of the Indian States are quite unjustified. The fact that the polity of the Indian States is different from the polity of the British-Indian Provinces in no way implies that it is worse on that account.
Some of the States are admirably administered. Outside the cases I have mentioned there would be no justification upon the lines of this Bill—which is the only wise line for a federal constitution—for the kind of interference in the affairs of the Indian States that the right hon. Gentleman suggests in his Amendment.
Let me come to the second proposition, that concerned with the discussion of foreign affairs. Foreign affairs are reserved to the Governor-General. Being reserved, it is essential if the reserved powers are not to be compromised that the Governor-General should have full powers as to their discussion and as to the kind of questions that can be discussed. In actual practice there is and always has been in the system of the Government of India a safeguard of this kind, in which a discussion of foreign affairs only takes place with the previous sanction of the Governor-General. In actual practice that has been found to be a salutary safeguard. It has been found that in the orbit of the activities of the Assembly where discussion has been safe and legitimate such discussions have been allowed. In the case of a federal constitution, in which quite definitely foreign affairs becomes a reserved department, there is a necessity for a safeguard of this kind. Here again I cannot conceive any sensible Governor-General shutting down discussion where the discussion is not going to compromise important Indian and Imperial interests, but I do think that if the Governor-General is to have real responsibility in the reserved department of foreign affairs he must have a safeguarding power of this kind.
That is the one argument and the overwhelming argument against the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). Having said that, I am not in the least suggesting that there would be an unbridgeable gulf between the two sides of the Government. I am contemplating a Federal Government in which both sides, those responsible for the reserved departments and those responsible for the transferred departments, are going to work in active and constant co-operation. Therefore, the kind of case suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Broxtowe is most unlikely to arise. None the less if it does arise, I think that quite definitely
the Governor-General ought to have these powers. I regret that once again I have to say "no" to the hon. Member for Broxtowe. I say it with great regret, but in a case of this kind it is essential, because it is an essential part of the scheme. Without a power of this kind the Governor-General's responsibility might be seriously compromised.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to show what has been described as weakness but that he is going to stand by his guns. I am sorry that he has given the answer that he has. We have taken this line consistently not only here but in the Joint Select Committee. We consider that the people of British India should have a much larger share in discussing foreign affairs, the foreign relations of India with other countries than is left to them under the operation of this Clause. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman lays great stress upon the hope—I trust the hope will be well-founded—that no Governor-General will be unreasonable in the exercise of these powers. We can all join in that expression of hope, but we must re-member that all men are not of the same calibre. Some are more timorous than others, and it might well be that one Governor-General might be a sort of person who in order quite honestly to avoid trouble might think that the easiest way was to prevent any discussion arising. He might say: "If I allow this thing to be discussed in the Assembly there will be no end of a row, and the best way to avoid that is by preventing discussion." That might seem for the moment to be a source of strength, but in the end it might be a source of weakness. We have been hoping that some day, and we hope soon, the people of India will necessarily be given full power and be free to discuss foreign affairs with the same degree of freedom as Canada, Australia, South Africa or any of the other Dominions. Surely it is not a bad thing to allow them to have a discussion and to become familiarised with questions of foreign affairs. That would be all to the good. There is nothing like the school of experience for developing sureness of touch. The next point to which I desire
to refer is concerned with Sub-sections (2) and (3).

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot refer to sub-paragraph (3). The Amendments now before the Committee are to leave out paragraph (c), and to leave out paragraphs (d, i) and (d, ii).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I did not hear you refer to paragraph (d, ii). The second Amendment is to insert the words "British Indian" and I thought the third Amendment was to leave out paragraph (i).

The CHAIRMAN: The thing is quite clear, and I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Member is under any misapprehension. The three Amendments in question are; first, Clause 38, page 25, line 7, to leave out paragraph (c); second, Clause 38, page 25, line 19, to leave out paragraph (i); and, third, Clause 38, page 25, line 23, to leave out paragraph (ii).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I desire to refer to paragraph (ii), the exclusion of discussion on reserved areas. It is agreed that under this proposal the Governor-General will be formally in charge of these excluded areas, but what happens in these areas must indirectly be of interest to other parts of India. The observations I have made in relation to foreign affairs apply also to excluded areas. It may be that an excluded area may become fit for absorption into a province, or may be created into a new province, and surely it is worth while that they should get to know what is happening in these areas so that when they become responsible for them they may have a clear knowledge as to the condition of affairs. I want to urge with ever increasing strength that these limitations constantly placed upon the activities of the Indian people are not only disappointing but may tend to embitter feelings in relation to the measure of self-government which is presented to them by this Bill. I am sorry that the Government are adhering to these proposals and give us no hope of any relenting in the smallest degree.

4.34 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is not knowingly handing over the natives in the native areas to a worse
fate than that which they enjoy at the present time. There is no doubt that the question of the treatment of native States remains as exactly as it was. Is that so?

Sir S. HOARE: It is to a certain extent, but not altogether so from another point of view. The position is different from this angle, namely, that the Indian States will have conceded certain powers to the Federal Executive and Legislature. To that extent there will be a change.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is to the good.

Sir S. HOARE: I will not express an opinion one way or the other, but to that extent there is a change. As far as paramountcy is concerned, except in so far as concession of powers to the Federation is concerned, paramountcy will remain as it is now. It will therefore be just as possible in the future for the paramount power to intervene in the case of some gross abuse as it is to-day.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not intend to press the Amendment, but I should like to get from the Secretary of State a further guarantee about the definition of British subjects. He has said that it will still be possible to secure justice for a British Indian subject, for a native, who has been treated unjustly, that he will still have the same rights as he has now. Any injury to a national of British India is reserved. If he refers to a previous speech, he will find that he distinctly said that injury to a British

Indian subject in the Native States could be inquired into provided the Governor-General approved. Do the words "British subject" in this Clause mean a British Indian subject or only an Englishman?

Sir S. HOARE: It means both.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 25, line 19, to leave out paragraph (i).
I regret that the Amendment has not been accepted. I cannot see why if the sphere of action in foreign affairs is reserved a discussion on foreign affairs should also be reserved. It would be a salutory thing if discussion could take place, and I hope that the Governor-General will use his discretion in this matter fairly freely. I want to ask one question. I hope that this Clause does not cover the question of commercial treaties which are conducted through the foreign department. I hope that a discussion on commercial treaties will be allowed.

Sir S. HOARE: It will certainly not hamper those discussions.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 39.

Division No. 97.]
AYES.
[4.40 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Conant, R. J. E.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cook, Thomas A.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cooke, Douglas


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cooper, A. Duff


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Burnett, John George
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Butler, Richard Austen
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Cranborne, Viscount


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Critchley, Brig-General A. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Crooke, J. Smedley


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Carver, Major William H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Castlereagh, Vitcount
Cross, R. H.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Crossley, A. C.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Bernays, Robert
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bossom, A. C.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Boulton, W. W.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Denville, Alfred


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Christle, James Archibald
Donner, P. W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Duckworth, George A. V.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Duggan, Hubert John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Colfox, Major William Philip
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colman, N. C. D.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lewis, Oswald
Rickards, George William


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mabane, William
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Salt, Edward W.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Goff, Sir Park
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Gower, Sir Robert
McKeag, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McKie, John Hamilton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Graves, Marjorie
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Greene, William P. C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerset, Thomas


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Martin, Thomas B.
Somerville. Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hanbury, Cecil
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hartington, Marquess of
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Meller, Sir Richard James
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stevenson, James


Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur p.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Stones, James


Herbert, Major J. A. (Menmouth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Storey, Samuel


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Strauss, Edward A.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Moss, Captain H. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hornby, Frank
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Summersby, Charles H.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Thomas. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Owen. Major Goronwy
Thompson, Sir Luke


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Patrick. Colin M
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pearson, William G.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peat, Charles U.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Penny, Sir George
Turton, Robert Hugh


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Petherick, M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ker, J. Campbell
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Kimball, Lawrence
Pybus, Sir John
Wayland, Sir William A.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rea, Walter Russell
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Law, Sir Alfred
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)



Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Raid, William Allan (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Mr. Blindell.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cleary, J. J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leonard, William
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Logan. David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John
Wilmot, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Milner, Major James
Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

Amendment made: In page 25, line 20, leave out "affecting" and insert "connected with."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

4.50 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 25, line 25, after "on," to insert:
any matter connected with the tribal areas or.
This is to bring the tribal areas within the field of subjects in which the safeguard in connection with discussion is necessary. I do not think I need argue the case for including the tribal areas. Obviously if there is to be a safeguard of this kind covering the field of foreign affairs, owing to the risks inherent in irresponsible discussions, that argument is of greater weight on the very inflamable subject of the tribal areas.

Amendment agreed to.

4.51 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 25, line 30, to leave out "Province" and to insert:
Governor's Province or Chief Commissioner's Province.
This Amendment is necessary in our judgment because by virtue of Clause 46 (3) "Province" in this Clause would appear to mean only a Governor's Province. On the other hand under the provisions of Part IV of the Bill many of the functions of the Governor-General in regard to a Chief Commissioner's Province are to be exercised in his discretion. It would seem more logical, therefore, to prohibit discussion in respect to the exercise of these particular functions. Inasmuch as that is the case in the Governor's Province it should be so in respect of similar matters in the Chief Commissioner's Province.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I am afraid that if we were to add the words "Chief Commissioner's Province" to this Subsection the object of the Sub-section would not be achieved. The object of the words in the Bill is to check the Federal Legislature from discussing questions of internal administrations, in the affairs of a Governor's Province. When the Governor-General intercedes in his discretion and takes any action in a Province it will be very dangerous to allow the Federal Legislature to pursue discussions on the internal affairs of that Province, put outside the purview of the Federal Legislature. Under Clause 84, which we shall be discussing later, it is possible for a Provincial Legislature to pursue a discussion upon questions of this sort involved by the action of the Governor acting as the agent of the
Governor-General in his discretion, within the Province itself.
In the same way there is no wish to check completely discussion in this realm in regard to a Chief Commissioner's Province, but these Provinces come under the Federal Government. Since there is no wish completely to ban discussion in either case it would be wrong to insert the words of the Amendment here, because that would deprive the Sub-section of most of its meaning and check any sort of discussion of these matters, which is not the object of the Bill before us. It is a somewhat complicated question, but the effect of the Amendment would be to make it more confused than it is now.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.54 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, in page 25, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(iv) discussion of any matters relating to the defence of India or the administration of the Army.
If it be necessary in paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of Sub-section (1) to provide safeguards, those safeguards should be provided on the most vital matter of all in this Bill, the Army. A most undesirable and probably dangerous publicity might be given otherwise to the movements of troops and fortifications, and the Governor-General might be gravely embarrassed in the exercise of his duty under Clause 11. There should be no question of tampering in any way with the freedom of the Governor-General in moving the British Army as he likes. The loyalty of the British Indian Army depends entirely on the prestige of the British Army. Provided that you have a strong Viceroy and a good, loyal Army, whatever Constitution you give to India would work fairly well, but it is absolutely vital that the safeguard in this case should not only be a safeguard on paper in the Bill. It is quite apparent what will be the attitude of the Legislative Assembly to the spending of money on Army administration of any sort. It is necessary only to read to-days news in the "Times," where it is stated:
By 79 votes to 48 the Indian Legislative Assembly to-day carried a motion to refuse supplies for the Army Department by reducing the estimate to one rupee.
That, of course, has happened before, and it will continue to happen. It may be that even when the Indians become responsible legislators, they will still do the same thing, because they will know that the Viceroy will certify it. We must remember that the safety of the whole population, Indian and British, depends on the Army. Secret mobilisation plans, not in the hands of the Governor-General but very often in the hands of Indian heads of departments, information about posts, telegraphs, transport, railways and munitions, might all be given away. That would be a most undesirable thing. You have only to read the speech of the Commander-in-Chief last July to see for what the Army is used. Forty thousand of the Army were used to keep peace among a few gentlemen who were always fighting among themselves. The services of the Army are absolutely vital. Without it India would be back in the position that the Joint Select Committee so well described: that it was in when the strong hand of the Moghul Emperors was withdrawn, a state of chaos and anarchy.
Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the British Army should be free and unhampered in every way, and that secret orders and communications regarding mobilisation, both internally and externally, should be able, if necessary, to be barred in discussion. In this country under these conditions a Minister says that it is not in the public interest to give the information. All I want is that the Viceroy should be able to give power to his Ministers to answer in that way. Section 108 puts defence and ecclesiastical affairs as subjects for which Bills cannot be introduced in the Assembly if the Viceroy disapproves. That is not enough. It is all very well for ecclesiastical affairs, but the Army depends on administration and cannot move unless it has all sorts of services at its disposal. Unless the plans for defence are carefully made beforehand it will be impossible for them to be effective. I only want to ensure that the Viceroy will have the power, if necessary, to bar discussion. There must be no risk of any loss of efficiency. The Viceroy should have the power to stop the discussion of any methods involving public safety.

5.2 p.m.

Brigadier- General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I cannot help thinking it is an oversight that the question of Army affairs has been omitted. Surely if the discussion of any foreign affairs is prohibited Army affairs are still more important. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment pointed out that in a certain newspaper there is a telegram from Delhi that says that in the discussion yesterday of Army affairs it was carried by 78 votes to 49 that the whole Army Estimates should be reduced to 1 rupee. That was passed in an Assembly which included at present, owing to the past common sense of the House of Commons, over 40 officials and nominated members. You are opposing to set up a federal Assembly consisting of 375 members, with not a single nominated official. You can judge of the value of discussions in the present Assembly; how much less value will they have in the new Assembly. I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to this Amendment. He has not in a single case given way to any one of our Amendments, though he showed a softening of the heart to the official Opposition last night. I cannot help thinking it is a deliberate oversight to have left out the Army in drafting this Clause.

5.4 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) when he says that it is essential that the administration of the Army should be free and unhampered. So long as it is a reserved department the Governor-General's responsibility should be clear and his powers complete. I agree entirely with that view, and I hold that under the provisions of the Bill we have safeguarded the position. The money for the Army is not voted. The Governor-General has full responsibility for the administration of the Army. Moreover, he has full powers to intervene in any other department if he finds that directly or indirectly his responsibility for the Army is being compromised. So far as I can see, the position is watertight. The question raised by this Amendment is not the question to which I have just made this passing allusion but the smaller issue: should there be any check upon debates on Army affairs in the Federal Legislature? Let the Committee, keeping
in mind the general position, namely, that the responsibility and powers of the Governor-General are complete, devote themselves to this issue and this issue alone: is it wise or is it not wise to check the debate of our Indian affairs in the Federal Legislature?
In answering that question, let the Committee remember the fact I stated the other night, that all Indians both in British India and in Indian India are intensely interested in Army affairs. They provide practically the whole sum of money for Indian defence, and it has been the settled policy of the present Government and of preceding Governments to give Indians a greater and greater part in the responsibility for the defence of India. Let the Committee, then, remember that fact, first of all, in answering this question about debates. Secondly, let them remember that ever since the Government of India Act opportunities for debate on Army affairs have been freely offered to the Assembly. So far as I am aware, no check has been placed on these debates at all. The fact that the day before yesterday, in a fit of irresponsibility, the Assembly passed a vote against the Indian budget—knowing that its vote made no difference whatever to the Indian budget; knowing, also that in the past it has passed similar votes and that these votes, again, have made no difference to the Indian budget—surely shows that we have in the past allowed full opportunities for debate and that we are now allowing full opportunities for debate. Indeed, past history goes to show that no regrettable results have come about after these debates.
The present Commander-in-Chief rather welcomes them. The Army as a whole welcomes these debates. It gives them an opportunity of putting their case to the Assembly even though the Assembly may not agree with them, and the Army have not at all taken the view of recent years that it is a mistake to let members in the Indian Assembly, knowing nothing about what is going on in the administration, talk about it. It has been the settled policy of the heads of the Army in India for several years past to bring Indians so far as they can into the field of knowledge of these affairs and to try to obtain their sympathy and support for the Army in India. I am inclined to think that this sympathy and support
is much more likely to be forthcoming, even if we may from time to time have setbacks, such as we have had, may be, in the last few days, if we do allow these opportunities for discussion and welcome the chance of interesting Indians themselves in their own defence. That has been the settled policy of every Government now since 1919.
My own view is that it would be unwise to withdraw the powers that now exist, particularly in view of the fact that we are setting up in this Bill a Federal Legislature in which the Indian Princes, if they accede to the Federation, will be taking an effective part. As every Member of the Committee knows, if there be one question more than another that interests Indian India and the representatives of Indian India, it is defence questions. I cannot conceive a Federal Assembly in India in which discussions of this kind should not be allowed. For these reasons, my advice to the Committee is not to abrogate the facilities that have existed without any serious danger since 1919, but to accept the position as it is in the Bill, realising, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that the fact that there are discussions in no way derogates from the clear responsibility of the Governor-General for the reserved department of defence or from his powers to see that this reserved department and his responsibilities are in no way compromised.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Is it not a fact that under (1, a) of this Clause the Governor-General has full power to make rules of procedure limiting the matters for discussion? I assume that is on any other subject in regard to which he has special responsibilities.

Sir S. HOARE: That is so, so far as I may judge. The fact, however, that we mention certain cases where we contemplate this previous sanction being given does imply that we have these cases in mind and are not contemplating withdrawing from the Federal Assembly facilities that now exist.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: In amplification of what my right hon. Friend said is it not a fact that a very large proportion of the Indian army is recruited from Indian native States—for instance, Garhwal, the Phulkian States and Kashmir? I think that would be a very
great influence and the Indian Princes would welcome the opportunity of looking after their people. They will be vitally interested in the welfare of their subjects serving in the Indian army.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: If such a question as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend were discussed in the Federal Legislature would it not be inconsistent with a vote we have just given? Paragraph (c) forbids discussion in the Legislature of any matter relating to the States.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I only wish to ask one question following the question of my right hon. Friend behind me. It may be very desirable in general terms to continue the present practice as regards army discussions in the Indian Legislature. I quite understand that for that reason that matter has not been included in the Sub-section under (d). At the same time I think we can all realise that there may very well be matters, not at this moment but at certain times, which ought not to be discussed in the Assembly; questions that it would be undesirable to ask. The only question I want to ask is whether there is anything in Paragraph (a) which precludes the Viceroy, if such intervention should be found necessary, from making regulations definitely excluding a matter from discussion.

Mr. MOLSON: Is the point not covered in Sub-section (2) of Clause 40, which provides that where the Viceroy is going to exercise his responsibility for peace and tranquillity he may give directions that the Bill should not be proceeded with, and discussion not take place?

5.15 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: The position, I think, is really quite safe. The Governor-General under Clause 12 can instruct Ministers not to give information. There is no doubt about that at all. If a private member started an embarrassing discussion, apart from the question of whether the Governor-General could stop it or not, the defence counsellor who, of course, is an official of the Governor-General, could refuse to give any information. He could, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, return the answer which is sometimes given here, to the effect that it is not
in the public interest to give information of the kind for which he is asked. Being solely responsible to the Governor-General nobody can say that he is compelled to give the information. This would not involve the Governor-General's intervention at all, and it is apart from the earlier Sub-section which, I think, could be used in the ultimate resort. I submit therefore that the position is quite safe.

5.17 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: When one looks at the reports of recent debates in the Assembly in India one is bound to regard the future under the new Constitution as very bleak indeed if no words are to be inserted in this Measure to prevent irresponsible debates on the Army. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Governor-General can instruct Ministers to give no information, but that is not going to stop an endless series of debates and it will not make for the good government of India to have continuous debates on questions of military policy and military movements. Such debates involve great danger. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman in order to protect his own machinery would be anxious to take steps to prevent such discussions on vital military subjects. He pointed out that, in the past, there had been debates on these questions, but there was a very different situation then, because the hand of the Government was still controlling the nation, the British partnership was still complete and whatever irresponsible speeches were made in the Assembly the caravan went marching on. In future there will be a Government supposed to be representative of the people and you may have endless criticism and difficulty. I am only wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman will not even yet reconsider the position and provide at least some safeguard to check perpetual bickering and agitation in regard to these questions which may lead to grave difficulties and dangers in India.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to realise the nature of the Assembly which is to discuss these matters. There are to be 229 representatives of their Highnesses the Princes. They are not irresponsible.

Mr. CHURCHILL: They will not be there.

Mr. COCKS: Then there are to be 156 multi-millionaires of whom we have been told from British India in the Council. There are to be 250 representatives of British India, many of them wealthy men, in the Assembly. Is a body of that sort likely to have irresponsible debates on questions vitally affecting the defence of India—their own defence? Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that these men of wealth, these representatives of the fighting races in India whose whole power and prestige depends on the proper defence of India are not to be allowed to have a voice in a matter so closely affecting their own interests? They are the people who will rally to the defence of India, and will see to it that those defences shall not be weakened in any way. I am surprised at the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). He is really insulting the representatives of the Princes. He wants to gag the Princes and to prevent them discussing the defence of India for which their subjects will be very largely responsible. In this matter, I strongly support the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.21 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I wish to ask a question on Sub-section (1, d) (iii) which precludes, save with the consent of the Governor-General, any discussion of or question on any action taken in his discretion by the Governor-General in relation to the affairs of a Province. Might it not happen that action taken by the Governor-General in relation to a particular Province would involve a matter of principle affecting not only that Province but other Provinces as well? In such a case are we to understand that this provision would prevent a discussion on that principle being raised in the central Assembly without the consent of the Governor-General? I feel that this paragraph is a little too sweeping. We have already indicated our general attitude on the Clause. We intend to vote against it standing part of the Bill but I would
first like to have an explanation of the point I have raised.

5.22 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I think it is clear that the words in the paragraph about which the hon. Member asks refer to what is contemplated in Sub-section (3) of Clause 125, that is to say a case in which the Governor-General under his powers and in his discretion has issued orders to the Governor of a Province in respect of some matters which have arisen in that Province. I did not understand the hon. Member to suggest that it should be the right of the Federal Assembly to discuss any controversy or any matter concerning the action of the Governor-General in relation to a particular Province. I understood his question to be: Might not such action on some occasion raise a general question of principle? If so, obviously there is nothing in this paragraph to prevent any general question of principle, provided it is within the federal sphere, being discussed but it would have to be raised as a question of principle and not in relation to some action taken concerning the affairs of a Province. I think the hon. Member will agree that it ought not to be possible to raise the question in that form, but as I say if there is a general question of principle involved, obviously it can be raised. In such a discussion it might be in order to make a passing reference—as so often happens in our own proceedings here—to the fact that certain action had been taken, but we adhere to the view that action taken in the Provinces would not be a proper subject matter for discussion in the Federal Assembly.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for his explanation, but there is yet one point which I would like made clear. Supposing the Governor-General interferes in the affairs of a Province and his action gives rise to a question of first-rate importance as a provincial matter. The Solicitor-General says that it could be raised as a matter of principle, but I submit that under this provision it could only be raised with the consent of the Governor-General who is one of the parties to the action in question. There ought to be opportunity to raise a matter of that sort, which is
of common interest to all the Provinces even though it directly concerns only one particular Province, without having to obtain the consent of the Governor-General.

5.25 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot think of any case in which that difficulty would arise. The important point is that we should not allow in the Federal Assembly discussions about affairs which are really provincial affairs. I think we are all agreed as to that. I will look into what the hon. Member has said and see if

there is anything in his point but I do not think there is.

Sir H. CROFT: We do not intend to discuss the various questions which have been raised on this Clause, since the Secretary of State has not found himself able to meet us on a single one of our points.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 78.

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[5.26 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Loftus, Pierce C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Albery, Irving James
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mabane, William


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Apsley, Lord
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McKeag, William


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton


Bernays, Robert
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Blindell, James
Glossop, C. W. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Bossom, A. C.
Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Boulton, W. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Graves, Marjorie
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brass, Captain Sir William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brocklesank, C. E. R.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Milne, Charles


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Buchan, John
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Maison, A. Hugh Elsdale


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Moore. Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Burnett, John George
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Butler, Richard Austen
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Campbell. Vice-admiral G. (Burnley)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Munro, Patrick


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hornby, Frank
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Owen, Major Goronwy


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Patrick, Colin M.


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pearson, William G.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peat, Charles U.


Christle, James Archibald
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Petherick, M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Conant, R. J. E.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pybus, Sir John


Cook, Thomas A.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cooke, Douglas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)


Cooper, A. Duff
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knight, Holford
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Crossley, A. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rickards, George William


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lewis, Oswald
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Duggan, Hubert John
Liddall, Walter S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Eales, John Frederick
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Llewellin, Major John J.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Salt, Edward W.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H, (Darwen)
Stevenson, James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Stones, James
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Storey, Samuel
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Selley, Harry R.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Strauss, Edward A.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Summersby, Charles H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somervell, Sir Donald
Sutcliffe, Harold
Womersley, Sir Walter


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thompson, Sir Luke



Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Train, John
Sir George Penny and Major


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
George Davies.


Spens, William Patrick
Turton, Robert Hugh



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Everard, W. Lindsay
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Alexander, Sir William
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Greene, William P. C.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Bracken, Brendan
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Remer, John R.


Buchanan, George
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Carver, Major William H.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hartington, Marquess of
Somerset, Thomas


Cleary, J. J.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Kimball, Lawrence
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wells, Sydney Richard


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(English to be used in the Federal Legislature.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.35 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This Clause only deserves momentary notice, because it is the Clause which prescribes the use of the English language in the Federal Assembly. Indeed, it is not necessary to prescribe it, because it is the only language in which the many different races of India can transact common business, and I think that it is worth public notice that this vehicle of the English language and everything else that is being done through the influence and authority of the British Raj has promoted and built up such unity of India as exists. When we hear the talk which goes on about all India a nation, and India is represented as an identity, it is worth while realising
how very superficial, artificial, and recent is this veneer of British civilisation and organisation which has been spread over this vast and heterogeneous area. Certainly it would be a pity for us to pass this Clause, with which I am entirely in accord, without noticing the fact that when even the most hostile conspiracies are levelled against this country by different Indian races, the preparations for them have to be conducted in the English language, and surely as our influence and authority diminish, so surely will the hope of any form of Indian unity die.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to state approximately how many Indians can speak the English language, and whether all these proceedings in the Federal Legislature and the Provincial Assemblies will be translated into the English language?
If not, will they be translated into the local languages suitable for particular areas, or, what other channels has the hon. Gentleman in mind through which to inform those who will be called upon to elect the lower assemblies and the Federal Assembly?

5.38 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I am afraid I have not the exact statistics of the number of Indians who speak English, but I dare to say that a very large number transact their daily business in English, and I should like to pay a tribute to the genius of the British race in giving India this opportunity for a unifying language, as was claimed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), as to how the proceedings in the legislatures which are conducted in English shall reach the ears or eyes of the masses, there is the vernacular Press, on which I think we can rely to inform the masses as to what is proceeding in these assemblies.
I notice that the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone), a colleague and friend of the right hon. Member for Epping, who has always expressed such hopes and wishes on behalf of the masses, had an Amendment down to this Clause which would have omitted the proviso that those who did not understand the English language should be allowed to address the Legislature if necessary in the vernacular. That, I think, would have cut out some of the poorer and more modest representatives of those very masses, and the depressed classes perhaps, or representatives of labour or others who might not have satisfactorily mastered the English language through lack of opportunity. It is strange that such an Amendment should have been placed upon the Paper by the Noble Lord. I do not wish to enter into controversy on this Clause; I only thought fit to draw attention to that point.
Apart from that, I should like to support what the right hon. Member for Epping has said and to say that it is due to the English language that so much unification has been achieved. It has been a rule in the Legislature that English should be the language. This proviso which is included has been a proviso in
the present rules of business of the Indian Legislature during the last 12 years of the reforms, and we are merely preserving the situation as it exists at present in India.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sorry the Under-Secretary of State went out of his way to criticise my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone). As a matter of fact, there is a great deal to be said for querying the proviso, because the proviso seems to a very large extent to take away the sense of the Clause, and, if worked in a certain manner, it would destroy the sense of the Clause; but it is sufficient, as the question is raised, to state that the matter has worked well on this basis. But why, when my Noble Friend did not move his Amendment in order to expedite business, the Under-Secretary of State should go out of his way, in the hope of making a score at his expense, to occupy several minutes of our time, I am unable to say.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: As my name is down to the Amendment which has not been moved, I should like to point out that there is some justification for the Amendment, inasmuch as we are dealing with the Central Assembly. I should like to point out to the Under-Secretary of State that there is no similar Amendment with regard to the Provincial Legislatures. It was merely a matter, therefore, of dealing with the Central Assembly, considering the fact that the members of it are elected on an indirect vote.

5.42 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: If we are ever to achieve unity in India, we shall only do it through the universal use of the English language. Therefore, as the Government are professing to try to achieve federal unity, I am very much surprised that they do not accept the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: No Amendment is before the Committee.

Sir W. WAYLAND: I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said with regard to the English language. If the English language only is used in India, what follows? All those who desire to represent their fellow countrymen will learn English. It will compel the majority
to learn the only language which is in any degree the universal language in India. Therefore, I certainly think it would be a step absolutely in the right direction, towards unity, if the English language only was used in the Federal Assembly.

CLAUSE 40.—(Restrictions on discussion.)

5.43 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 21, after the second "Court," to insert "or of any district judge."
This is an Amendment which I most earnestly commend to the Government. The Clause gives protection, probably from pressure through discussion in the Legislature, to the federal judges and the judges of the High Court, and it would seem even more necessary to protect the district judges from such pressure. The Report of the Joint Select Committee recommended that protection should be given to the district judges in the matter of promotion, and it is even more vital that such protection should be given to them as is given to the higher judges. This Bill is admirable in its draftmanship, but it does not go down quite deep enough. It does not go down to the small men or the masses, and this is an example of that defect. We want to protect the smaller people. Imagine the district judge at work in a district possibly tainted by terrorism, performing his dangerous and difficult duties, with the difficulties added to them by political pressure through discussion in the Legislature. Surely it is only humane to deliver him from such pressure. I would ask the Secretary of State to consider this Amendment and to afford to the district judge, whose work is attended with great difficulties and dangers, the same protection that the Clause gives to the federal judges and the judges of the High Court who occupy much safer positions.

5.46 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend is grateful to those who put down this Amendment for drawing his attention to the matter. The Joint Select Committee recommended the continuance of the rule that the judiciary should be safeguarded from
criticisms in the Federal Legislature. It may be that they had in mind the judges of the Federal Court and the High Court, but there are grounds which the hon. Member has put forward for considering whether that protection should not be extended to the district judges. I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment at this stage as my right hon. Friend desires to discuss the matter with the authorities in India. He thinks that it would be right to make this extension if there are no objections, which he does not for the moment foresee.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: In discussing this matter with the Indian authorities, will the Secretary of State point out that this is the practice in the House of Commons. We cannot discuss the findings of a metropolitan police magistrate, for example, and this Amendment will not make any change in the practice which obtains in this House.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL: That point has been raised, but on the other hand, unless it is by a substantive Motion, a judge of the High Court cannot be called in question.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: When the Secretary of State is reconsidering this matter—and there are good grounds for an extension of the protection—will he bear in mind that the words "district judge" do not altogether cover the case?

5.48 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I think from what my hon. Friend said just now that the necessity of protecting a district judge also applies to a sessions judge, and it is important that the Sub-section should include him as well. The comments on civil cases are less likely to be of such an obnoxious kind as those on criminal cases, especially cases connected with terrorists. Another reason for including these judges in this Clause is that the courts of India have very little protection from what is known in this country as contempt of court. Only the High Courts can take any action, and the other courts are left without much protection. It is, therefore, all the more desirable that, so far as discussions in the Federal Legislature go, they should receive full protection. That would
indirectly have effect on the kind of comments that are made on them in the Press.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I thank the Solicitor-General for his assurance, in view of which we can have good hope that this omission will be rectified. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to move, in page 26, line 23, to leave out Subsection (2).
We are moving this Amendment in no carping spirit. We are giving a constitution to India on the lines of our own Constitution and, as was remarked by more than one Member in the discussion on the last Amendment, this is what we do at home. We do not criticise the judges in this House except under special conditions. We on these benches take no exception to that, and that is why I say that we are not moving this Amendment in any carping spirit, but in order to do what we can to try and improve the Bill. Under this Sub-section the Governor-General is given the power to stop a Bill if it would affect the discharge of his special responsibility in regard to peace or tranquillity. The kind of case I have in mind is a Bill which might be introduced to allow the untouchables the right to enter a Hindu temple. There is a possibility of a Bill of that description being introduced, and, from what has happened in India before, our reason leads us to believe that certain individuals, orthodox Hindus, would go out and cause a riot as they have done before, in order to give the impression that there is trouble abroad in the land and so make it appear to the Governor-General that he should step in and stop the Bill going before the Assembly.
We think that is wrong, and we want to prevent that and to allow the Indians to have the same liberty as we enjoy in this House. We claim the right, here, irrespective of how revolutionary we may be, and how antagonistic we may be to orthodox opinion, to bring Bills before this House. It is true that right down the pages of history those Bills have been thrown out. Indeed, men and women who have dared to enunciate the ideas embodied in these Bills have been
arrested and thrown into prison, but we have seen those individuals liberated and honoured, and the ideas for which they were imprisoned and for which our forefathers were deported to Botany Bay become part and parcel of our Constitution, about which every hon. Member, irrespective of how diehard he may be, is proud to boast. Liberties for which our forefathers had to fight have been put on the Statute Book of this country.
Another Bill that might be introduced in India and that might cause disaffection is one to prevent child marriage. Hon. Members who take any interest in the affairs of India believe a Bill of that description would be beneficial to the Indian people, but again, because of religious prejudice, there are individuals who would be prepared to go to any length in order to prevent such a Measure coming before the Assembly. As they have done in the past, they would bribe certain individuals to go out and cause a riot or two, and then they would bring pressure to bear on the Governor-General. If Sub-section (2) became law, the Governor-General would be able to step in and prevent such a Bill coming before the Assembly. All our ideas of freedom are wrapped up in this provision, and it foregoes all that our forefathers fought and died for. It is our privilege in this House to be in the position to give these rights to the Indians, and to give to them what our forefathers died for in order that we might enjoy them. The liberties that we enjoy are not ours to surrender, but ours to defend, and we are now privileged to give those same liberties to a people which up to now have been a subject race to us.
Unless this Sub-section is deleted it will be impossible for any social reform legislation to come before the Legislatures in India. Our forefathers had the same fight as I forecast is possible in India. At the inception of the great and powerful trade union movement in this country those who inaugurated it had to stand all manner of abuse. Employers refused to employ trade unionists, victimised them. Our experience of what was done in this country—with all our boasted tolerance—leads us to foresee that the same thing will be done in India by those who are more powerful than the ordinary peasants. They can cause a strike, they can make it appear that
the people are in revolt because a certain measure is before the Legislature. We do not want to hand the power contained in this Sub-section to any Governor-General, no matter how good and tolerant he is. It will place him in the position of a dictator. I am sure that not even the Secretary of State himself would desire to put into any man's hands the power which would be given under this Sub-section. We believe that the more generously we treat our Indian brothers at this juncture the better it will be, not only for the Indian people themselves but for us, for the British Empire. Here is an opportunity presenting itself to us to consolidate our position in the East, to make friends with our friends in India. Time and again we have been threatened with war in the East through misunderstanding.
What could be a better bulwark for the British Empire than to have an India that was "thirled" to us; an India which believed that we were treating them as equals, that we were approaching them through this Bill as men with all our capabilities, as men with a human understanding, as men whom we were going to trust, putting great power in their hands in the belief that with power comes responsibility? We are not going to place the responsibility on a Governor-General. We have always objected to a dictatorship in this country. We do not believe that any one man has a right to have executive authority. It is a long time since we in this country did away with the divine right of Kings, but by this Sub-section we shall place a divine right in the hands of the Governor-General. It has not come from the Almighty, but it has come from almighty Britain. It is we who have now put ourselves in this unique position, in a godlike position, by setting out to place a man called the Governor-General in such a position as he would occupy if he were the Speaker in this House. He will determine whether a Bill is to come before the Legislature, and whether te people may hear the ideas set forth in that Bill propagated or not. I hope the Secretary of State will reconsider this matter and give me as much of a concession to-night as he gave me last night, and then not only the Indians but generations yet unborn in Britain will bless him; because there is more at stake in
this Sub-section than appears. Those who oppose us most in our efforts to give the Indians what we claim for our selves here—I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his supporters are not here—

Sir W. WAYLAND: You have frightened him away.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, the right hon. Member for Epping is not frightened of anything in this House, or anywhere else. He and his supporters not only claim, but at this very juncture exercise in no uncertain fashion, the right that we are claiming here for the Indians. They go into by-elections, not caring whether they wreck their party or anything else, or cause disaffection in the country. They have a point of view to put and will put it irrespective of the consequences. I ask them to be big enough—I do not say they are small-minded men, because I know they are not, and I cannot attack their courage, because I know they are courageous—I ask them to be big enough and courageous enough to treat the Indians as they like to be treated themselves. That is all we are asking for in this Amendment, and if the Secretary of State aproaches it from that point of view I am satisfied that he will accede to my request.

6.12 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend has moved his Amendment with the eloquence and brevity with which he always delights the House. In the course of his remarks he raised two very wide and general issues. He has very great knowledge, much greater than I have, of the Rules of Order, and I am sure he will agree that it would not be in order on this Amendment to discuss the fact that in an earlier Clause the Committee have imposed on the Governor-General a special responsibility in respect of anything which would be liable to disturb peace and tranquillity. This Amendment raises a very much narrower question, whether, if the Governor-General is satisfied that the discussion of a particular Bill might itself be a menace to peace and tranquillity, he shall have the power, in his discretion, to prevent such a discussion taking place. It would be quite wrong to place on the Governor-General this responsibility and not give him effective
and proper means for carrying it out. That would put a man in an intolerable position.
Therefore, it seems to me that the Debate on this Amendment narrows itself very much to this issue: Is the discussion of a Bill in the Assembly a matter which might constitute or cause a menace to peace and tranquillity, because if it is it must be right to give the Governor-General power to prohibit that discussion? There are questions in India affecting religious and social customs which, if raised in a provocative form, might give rise at a particular moment to dangerous explosions of violence, and it is for that reason that the Government advise the Committee to resist this Amendment and to retain the Subsection, which is restricted, as will be seen, to the discussion of a Bill introduced or proposed to be introduced. It does not prevent them from asking questions, or the tabling of a Motion by a private Member.
This provision has been on the Statute Book for 16 years. It is certainly not our intention that discussion of proper and legitimate proposals for social reform should be impeded in any way. If my hon. Friend looks at paragraph 29 of the Instrument of Instructions he will see underlined there that the intention of the Sub-section is that it is only to be used if the Governor-General is satisfied that the discussion in itself, in obviously very exceptional circumstances, may constitute a menace to peace and tranquillity. My hon. Friend rather suggested that those who oppose some particular social reform may go outside, create a little disturbance in the streets and then go to the Governor-General and say, "Here is a menace to peace and tranquillity." We do not believe that any Governor-General will be hoodwinked by methods such as that. Measures of social reform such as we all have in mind can only be undertaken if public opinion is largely behind them. It is quite unwarranted to suggest that a social reform with public opinion behind it will be impeded in any way by this Sub-section which is intended to deal with very special circumstances and very special cases. We are satisfied that it is only in very special cases that it will be used. No section of the community is more interested in the preservation of peace and tranquillity than those classes
to which the hon. Member referred in his speech. In the circumstances, we think it would be unwise to accept the Amendment, and we shall resist it.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Solicitor-General has not met the point. It is a very common complaint against our rule in India that ever since the Mutiny we have shown timidity in dealing with social evils for fear of raising opposition and disturbance from various kinds of religious or vested interests. It is generally admitted that prior to that event we were far more vigorous in dealing with social evils. A new start is now being made, and we are putting the Governor-General in a position in which he will have to exercise his judgment whether or not to prevent a certain Bill even being introduced. There will be tremendous pressure in the mind of anyone in the Government of India to let sleeping dogs lie and not to interfere, and that pressure will be upon the Governor-General therefore to prevent the introduction of Bills which deal with thorny subjects.
The Solicitor-General brushed aside too lightly the possibility under this Sub-section of deliberate incitement to violence. He knows that there are a great many disturbances in India, and that they very frequently arise from religious causes. The country is in a period of transition, and there have been difficulties such as those which we had in connection with the Gurdwara dispute among the Sikhs in the Punjab, which led to violence. There are questions concerning the rights of the Untouchables, and there may be disputes between the Maths and the reforming bodies in regard to rights in Hindu temples. Trouble may arise in connection with the depressed classes, and there is the general question of reform, particularly in regard to women. In any case of that kind a Bill may be introduced into the Legislature and there will be opposition. I do not know if hon. Members receive, as I do, the various publications of the orthodox Hindus. They send them round, and we know the conditions that exist. We know the ease with which agitations can be got up in India. This Sub-section is an invitation to all the vested interests in religion to make a noise against any social reform.
It is not a question of making a noise in the streets and then running to the Governor-General. It is quite possible in a great country like India with an intense religious life to raise this kind of trouble in a pretty serious way, of which the Governor-General would have to take notice. The effect of this Subsection is that the right way to stop a Bill is not by argument or persuasion but by giving trouble in the country, so that the Governor-General will have to interfere. Suppose we had a similar provision in our constitution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his friends, instead of coming down to the House and taking part in our discussions, would be raising Cain all over the country. The Subsection is an invitation to disorder. It is quite unnecessary and rather absurd.
There has been a good deal of agitation on the question of the Sarda Act which deals with child marriage. It is proposed seriously in the Sub-section that such reformers should not be allowed to legislate on the question of child marriage. Are not reformers to be allowed to raise these questions by public meeting, by discussion or by writing? If they are, it follows that you may carry on an agitation for the removal of abuses and cause a good deal of opposition, but the one thing you may not do is to introduce the subject in the concrete form of a Bill in the Legislature. Our whole history of reform has been that ideas are put forward by Bills. Very likely they do not get very far, but the proposals are ventilated. What are the Government going to say to the social reformers—"When you have a certain amount of public opinion behind you you will not be able to test the Legislature, because when the Bill is introduced the Governor-General will say, 'In the exercise of my special responsibilities, and having in view the reports which I have had from various Provinces of agitation, I think it better that this should not be proceeded with'"? You will not stop agitation in that way; you will foment agitation, and you will stop the course of social reform.

6.23 p.m.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) does
not appear to have put his case so clearly before the Committee as he usually does on other matters. The very example which he gave is against him, and not for him. He has forgotten that the Sarda Act and similar matters have been opposed and discussed in the legislative assemblies in the past few years, although the very same provision as is now proposed existed in the Constitution. If his argument were correct, it would have been impossible for a measure such as that to have been dealt with. The fact is that Bills have been introduced without any interference from the Governor-General. If I felt that the effect of the Sub-section would be what he has suggested and was put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), I should be strongly in favour of its removal, but I am positive that their view is entirely mistaken. The Sub-section will not prevent the introduction and discussion of such Bills unless and until it is perfectly clear that to do so would raise difficulties in India which would require the interference of the Governor-General for the preservation of peace and tranquillity.
The hon. Member for Limehouse is mistaken in thinking that the mere introduction and discussion of social legislation is likely immediately to cause such trouble throughout the country as to make interference necessary. Considerable time is required for information about them to penetrate, and the Governor-General will be more anxious than anybody that such things should be introduced and discussed, because they have not been sufficiently dealt with in the past. There is no possible reason why the Governor-General should make use of this Sub-section to stop discussion, unless a situation arose which was likely to become a menace to peace and tranquillity, and in such a situation there is no other action which the Governor-General could take. It would be quite unfair to put the responsibility of doing so upon him and, as the Solicitor-General pointed out, not to give him power to carry it out. The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the inclusion of this Sub-section will jeopardise the discussion of social matters, which we are all anxious to see promoted in India.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 47.

Division No. 99.]
AYES.
[6.29 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McKie, John Hamilton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Albery, Irving James
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Easenhigh, Reginald Clare
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Martin, Thomas B.


Apsley, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mason, Col, Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Blalfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Milne, Charles


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Ganzoni, Sir John
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Glliett, Sir George Masterman
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bernays, Robert
Glossop, C. W. H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Blindell, James
Gower, Sir Robert
Moss, Captain H. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Munro, Patrick


Boulton, W. W.
Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Bracken, Brendan
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hamilton, Sir R W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Patrick, Colin M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Peake, Osbert


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Pearson, William G.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peat, Charles U.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Penny, Sir George


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Burnett, John George
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Butler, Richard Austen
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Potter, John


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pybus, Sir John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hornby, Frank
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Carver, Major William H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Castlereagh, Viscount
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rea, Walter Russell


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Remer, John R.


Christle, James Archibald
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rickards, George William


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarry, Reginald George
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cook, Thomas A.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cooke, Douglas
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Salt, Edward W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Knight, Holford
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lees-Jones, John
Seiley, Harry R.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, Oswald
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liddall, Walter S.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Litter, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Loder, Captain J. da Vera
Somervell, Sir Donald


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loftus, Pierce C.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Denville, Alfred
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Donner, P. W.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Doran, Edward
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Duggan, Hubert John
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Spent, William Patrick


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Eales, John Frederick
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Stevenson, James
Thompson, Sir Luke
Wayland, Sir William A.


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wells, Sydney Richard


Stones, James
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Storey, Samuel
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Strauss, Edward A.
Train, John
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Sutcliffe, Harold
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Tate, Mavis Constance
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)



Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Templeton, William P.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Banfield, John William
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Buchanan, George-
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cleary, J. J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, William
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Milner, Major James



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.37 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand, Captain Bourne, that you are not calling the Amendment which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville)—in page 26, line 28, after the second "the," to insert "treatment of minorities or the,"—and I should like to raise the matter on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." In this Clause we are giving to the Governor-General the power to prevent discussion on certain matters, and I should like to include in those matters—and I desire to point out to the Committee that it is not so included—any matter which is un-English in the sense that it differentiates in any way between the different castes or creeds in the country. Legislation of that kind produces exactly the same result as legislation dealing with child marriage would produce; it produces a more or less fictitious agitation; but it has a far more damaging effect upon the reputation, not only of the Government there, but of British administration generally. Once you get discriminatory legislation introduced into the Indian Assembly, you destroy for all time the idea that all British subjects are equal before the law. The
one Measure so far that has brought this issue to the front is the question of the differentiation between the various in habitants of the Punjab under the Land Alienation Act. Under that Act land can only be alienated to what are called the agricultural tribes. The agricultural tribes are not agriculturists, but people who belong to certain castes. The Mohammedan landowners—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I must remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have already had a pretty long discussion on that point, and it must not be repeated now.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not aware that we have discussed this question at all yet, though there will be plenty of occasions further on when it will have to be raised. All that I would point out is that it is desirable that, if the Governor-General has the right to prevent the discussion of questions which raise religious and caste prejudice, it is equally desirable that he should prohibit discussions on Bills which will discriminate between one set of British subjects and another on the ground that some belong to one caste and others to another. Discrimination is as vicious as any legislation which can be held to be anti-religious. It is worse in that sense than
discussion on child marriage—a question which affects every Hindu or Mohammedan very closely—because, while the Conservative forces in the country are against legislation on child marriage and social customs, the Conservative forces in the country are in favour of this discrimination between castes. If the Government have a right to prohibit discussion which might offend the Conservative elements in India, surely they have an equal right to prohibit discussion upon subjects which are equally vicious in principle, but which have the support of the Conservative elements and are opposed by the more enlightened elements in the country. I cannot see why there should not be in this Bill, not merely the prohibition of discussion provided for in Sub-section (2), but the prohibition of the initiation of legislation which will be, in my opinion, far more detrimental to our good name and to the peace and tranquillity and unity of India.

6.43 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am sure the Committee will not expect me to cover the very wide field which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just opened, particularly in view of the fact that the question of discrimination is dealt with at the beginning of Clause 111. Further, the question of the Punjab Land Alienation Act, to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is always referring, also has a Clause to itself—I think Clause 279. Moreover, most of his speech was directed to the special responsibility of the Governor-General to prevent discrimination—a responsibility to which the Committee has already agreed. This Clause has a much more limited ambit. It deals with the judges, and it deals with a contingency which, I suggest to the Committee, stands apart from any other contingency, namely, a grave menace to the stability of India. There is, it seems to me, a justification for preventing the discussion even of a private Member's Bill in face of the unique gravity of a situation of that kind, but I do not think there would be the same justification for preventing the discussion of even a private Member's Bill which was concerned with the very wide field just suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. That being so, I hope we shall not be drawn into a longer and wider discussion. As I have said, the Clause is one of limited ambit,
and I think it would be a great mistake to extend it.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 42.—(Power of Governor-General to promulgate ordinances during recess of Legislature.)

6.44 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 27, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (3).
The object of this Amendment is to obtain an elucidation of the effect of Subsection (3), that is to say, to ascertain how far it limits the validity of an ordinance, and whether it is certain that it covers all the ground that may have to be covered. It would be extremely unfortunate if the courts were asked to interpret an ordinance on the ground that it travelled outside the field of the competency of the Legislature. If I may give one example, it might be necessary to declare martial law in the case of a big communal disturbance. In that case, would this cover a declaration of martial law, or would that be said to be outside the competency of the Legislature, or is there any matter which requires the application of Sub-section (3) to limit the power of making an ordinance within the strict application of the powers of the Legislature? There are other Clauses in the Bill where a Governor's Act or ordinance is subject to this condition, namely, that it can be valid only when the ordinance would have been within the competency of the Legislature. It is only with the object of obtaining a reassurance on the point that I have moved the Amendment.

6.46 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend has appreciated the scope of this Clause, which deals with the ordinances dealt with by the Governor-General upon the advice of his ministers. Clause 43 deals with the ordinances made by the Governor-General in his own discretion. The first kind made by the Governor-General on the advice of his ministers are very much like the emergency orders made by the Government here in time of emergency under what is called the Emergency Powers Act, and which have to receive Parliamentary
sanction within a given time. The Governor-General's ordinances either within his own competence or his special responsibilities are made in Clause 43. The further question asked by my hon. Friend was in connection with the scope of the ordinances. The ordinances could not be made outside the scope of the Federal powers. I do not know whether I have made that point clear. The Governor-General could not make an ordinance over and above the powers given him within the Federation. There is, however, a Clause—Clause 102—that enables action to be taken in an emergency in the nature of D.O.R.A. legislation here. That gives him a wide field to extend his ordinance even outside the Federal field. The ordinances under Clauses 42 and 43 have to be within the powers given the Federal Legislature and the Federal Executive under this Bill. I do not know whether I have made the point clear to the hon. Member.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: What about Subsection (3) of Clause 44?

Sir S. HOARE: That is different.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: The same kind of condition applies to all these apparently, that they are not valid unless they could have been made by the Legislature.

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, that is so.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: This Sub-section and the two following Clauses which contain similar Sub-sections have caused me a very great deal of trouble for two reasons. First of all, with regard to the area in which they are to operate. As regards Clause 42 the scheme seems to be that when the Legislation is not sitting the Governor-General is to have certain powers of legislation within his discretion, and it appears to be quite right and proper that those powers should be confined to what the Federal Legislature itself should be able to do. Under similar Sub-sections which appear in the next two Clauses different considerations arise altogether. In the next two Clauses the Governor-General has to take certain action on his own responsibility or within his own individual judgment. If he exceeds something that the Legislature might do it may result in causing considerable trouble and raising constitutional questions, for the solution of which
at present there does not seem to be any remedy, as far as I can follow the Bill. If, in fact, the Governor-General's ordinance or Act under these Clauses is void, some sort of civil rights of the individual subject must have arisen, or must arise under them.
There are no means of bringing any suit against the Governor-General in respect of any void ordinances as the Bill stands at present. It is true that there are powers of sueing the Federal Legislature, but I am very doubtful whether, in respect of something being done under a Governor-General's void ordinance or Act, that right would arise at all. I only raise this question for consideration because difficult questions may arise under similar Sub-sections. Although so far as I can see there is no objection to the Sub-section in this Clause as it appears to be merely a question of the Governor-General's power of temporary legislation when the Federal Legislature is not sitting, similar Sub-sections give rise to questions which will require some further consideration before we pass them.

6.53 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am inclined to think that my hon. and learned Friend's apprehensions are unfounded. I can understand the criticism being addressed to the plan embodied in Clauses 42 and 43, but I do not quite understand my hon. and learned Friend's criticisms of the provisions which prevent the Governor-General from exceeding the powers which, if his powers were not brought into play, would be the powers of the Federal Legislature. I gather that my hon. and learned Friend does not object to the provision which is contained in Subsection (3) of Clause 42, but he does object to, or regards with some apprehension, a similar provision in Sub-section (4) of Clause 43. In both cases the ordinary provision exists that the Federal Courts will determine the extent of the powers of the Federal Legislature which will be the measure or the yard-stick of the powers of the Governor-General, his power of making an act or an ordinance, but my hon. and gallant Friend will, of course, be aware of the fact that this sort of question is very familiar to the Dominions. In Canada, as everybody knows, the development of the Dominion
has been accompanied by a growth of powers arising out of decisions by the Privy Council of precisely the same character in general as the question which would arise to be determined by a Federal Court in relation to the powers of the Federal Legislature and the corresponding competence of the Governor-General.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 45.—(Power of Governor-General to issue Proclamations.)

6.56 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 30, line 23, at the end, to insert:
(c) shall cease to operate unless within each successive period of six months after it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament its continuance is approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
I emphasise the word "continuance" in the Amendment, because it is really the pivot upon which the whole of my very short argument is based. Hon. Members will have noticed that we are dealing in this Clause with the powers of the Governor-General to issue Proclamations, and, of course, our own Government are apprehending that there might be a failure in implementing the constitutional machinery which they are now trying to pass into law. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) may take advantage of this Clause because it rather points to the view that the Government are not quite satisfied that the Constitution they are now making will be workable under all conditions in India. There is in the Amendment which I have moved, as I have said, the word "continuance," and unless I am really mistaken, the position, very briefly, is that a Proclamation issued under this Clause must receive the sanction of Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament in this country. The point that we are making is that such a proclamation might almost become permanent without being reviewed afterwards in the Houses of Parliament in this country at any time.
Whether the words we have put in the Amendment are good or not, we
are seeking that in the event of a Proclamation being issued, and it has the sanction by Resolution of our Parliament here, it shall not go on indefinitely without the Parliament in Great Britain being able to review the situation. It would be a very grave state of affairs indeed if a Proclamation remained in force simply by a Resolution of Parliament here for a period, say, of three or five years. Whatever our views may be about the new Constitution we are setting up, I suppose that it is fair to say that once it is passed by this Parliament it will be expected to work, but the Government are apprehending that it may not work. Consequently, this fact accounts for what we are attempting to do in the Amendment which I am now propounding. The power of the Governor, by the way, to issue a Proclamation differs from his power to revoke a Proclamation.
Dealing with this Amendment as it would appear to a plain man, I can foresee a situation arising when it would seem strange that a Proclamation to revoke a Proclamation could be made by the Governor without discussion in the Parliament of this country, although in the first instance we must sanction that Proclamation by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament in this country. The continuance of the Proclamation, however, once we have sanctioned it in this country, might set aside the whole of the machinery of this Bill, giving to the Governor-General power similar to that of Lenin, Hitler or Mussolini. This Parliament should have some power of reviewing, say, at least every six months the situation in India, instead of allowing the Proclamation to go on indefinitely without Parliament ever having the opportunity to review it at all.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must say I think there is a great deal of force in the point made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will be able to meet it in some way or other. It is certainly not at all objectionable to those who think with my hon. Friends that the conduct and control of Parliament should be lively and continuous. The object of this proposal is to provide, as it were, for a refresher of the
authority given by Parliament in an emergency measure. It is not desirable that measures brought in as emergent should gradually become permanent. Parliament should keep permanent supervision. I hope the Secretary of State will find it possible in some way or other to meet this point.

7.4 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: No one could object to the way the Mover and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) have put this point. The Amendment is very narrow, though it deals with a very important subject. This is what is called a breakdown Clause. What the Mover seeks to do is to give Parliament a greater measure of review than is accorded by the Clause. I think both hon. Members have overlooked one important fact. The Clause cannot be brought into operation except by affirmative resolution, whatever Government is in power, whatever is the form or composition of this House, and after a Clause of this nature has been put into operation—though it is true that this House has not taken much interest in the affairs of India—action of that kind would produce a first-class debate. This can only be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Then there would have to be a second debate; otherwise, the proclamation would cease to operate. I am sorry, I find I am wrong, and I apologise. There is only one debate: I misread the Sub-section. In the course of that debate, however, it is open to any Member of the House to move an Amendment to limit the period of its operation to such time as might be thought desirable. As far as my right hon. Friend is concerned—this may not apply to the Mover—surely a full discussion as to the time the Clause should operate should be sufficient. In particular, it could be sought to limit the period of the operation of the Clause at that time of discussion.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: One would wish that the Government, which, in the first instance, regularises this exceptional legislation would assume the burden itself of bringing before Parliament after six months a further debate. It is quite different when a private Member is told he can move an Amendment to confine
its operation to six months. In order to keep this exceptional procedure in being, Parliament ought to have to make a new and spontaneous effort every six months.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: My right hon. Friend is right in saying that in all probability Parliament in giving these very wide powers ought to set some time limit upon them. At the same time I am rather impressed by the argument of the Mover, that it would be undesirable to leave this Clause in a form which might convey the impression in India at any rate that we may contemplate putting into effect the suspension of the Federal Constitution. I suggest that the Secretary of State might consider whether some wording could not be inserted, indicating that some resolution should set a period upon its operation, or add some other words to this Clause to make it quite clear that the suspension of the Federal Constitution, if put into effect, is not likely to be maintained but would be reviewed from time to time by Parliament.

7.9 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I have been impressed for some time with the need of amending this Clause. I have taken, generally, the view that has been expressed from all sides of the Committee, that it would be highly objectionable to turn a state of emergency into a permanent system. I dislike as intensely as any other hon. Member any suggestion of turning the Federation into a more or less permanent dictatorship. Further, it is very necessary that Parliament should keep a very close control of the situation. The original proposal of the Government was that there should be this Resolution of both Houses after six months, and that after that, as it has been pointed out, once Parliament has approved by Resolution of the emergency measures, Parliament would cease to have any locus standi in the matter. I think that is wrong. I think I must go into this again and see whether Parliament should not continue to review the situation at fixed periods.
The position does not end there. I think I have also got to look into the bigger question as to whether a time limit should not be put upon the whole position of the Constitution. I will tell the Committee what I mean. From the
point of view of British India it would be objectionable to see, even with the periodical approval of Imperial Parliament, this Constitution turned into a permanent dictatorship. From the point of view of the Indian States, it would be highly objectionable, where they have made concessions in the federal field upon the assumption that the Federation was a permanent Constitution, to see the Federation abrogated in a time of emergency and the powers delegated by them for federal purposes used outside the Federal Government by the Governor-General. I think, therefore, from the point of view of the Indian States I have to look into this question again.
First of all, I have to look into it with a view to Parliament keeping a check on any renewal, and also from the point of view of whether it is wisest to say that after a period of years, say three years—I suggest that as possible—the Constitution should lapse—the whole Constitution, for I cannot conceive myself either British India or the Indian States resting content with what really would be a permanent system in place of Federation; nor can I conceive that the Imperial Parliament here would possibly allow a situation of that kind to continue. I think it may be well to put some such term into the Bill. I will look into this question again from those two points of view. I think I can find means of satisfying both of them. This has been the happiest day in Committee discussions, for I have had agreeing with me at one and the same time the right hon. Gentleman opposite and my right hon. Friend below the Gangway.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has thrown out a much larger proposition than that which we were discussing, one to which I do not hold him to be committed. Obviously, it is reasonable that fresh legislation would be required if the entire Act should lapse after a certain period of years. This is a much larger question, one which my right hon. Friend should not be led into without examining all the consequences that would follow. Suppose in these circumstances the existing Constitution is demolished. Hardly a vestige will remain when the new one is suddenly pulled away, because
it is necessary to supersede it by emergency measures. It seems quite evident that what you would require is not a provision in this Statute but new legislation by Parliament. Therefore, while assenting to the proposal to give some further safeguards against emergency measures becoming permanent through lapse of time, we would not like to be committed to such larger measures contemplated by him.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: So far as we are concerned we shall not press our Amendment, but we ask leave to withdraw it, reserving our right to consider the larger issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman insists upon speaking, the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

7.15 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman is of enormous importance, and I do not think that it ought to go unnoticed. That announcement will be welcomed greatly in India and will make all the difference to the Indian attitude. If we can carry through an Amendment to that effect and say that when a breakdown occurs and after a period of years that breakdown continues, the Act lapses, obviously that will make a whole world of difference to the Indian attitude towards the Bill. What we ought to find out as soon as possible is whether the right hon. Gentleman means that the Federation will lapse and that the Provincial Constitution will remain while the Federal Constitution lapses. Would that mean the recasting of the whole of the Act or could it not be arranged that it is merely a cancellation of the federal scheme as it stands during the three years while the Government are making up their mind?
What will happen at the end of those three years? Obviously, legislation will have to be introduced and considered. If it is to deal with the federal side, well and good, that is a simple problem, but if it is to deal with the whole provincial side as well it is an almost insoluble problem. I do hope that the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman will' bear fruit and that there will be introduced
into the Bill a proviso which I have not the slightest doubt would make the Bill infinitely more palatable to the Indian people. One of the chief objections to it has been that it is irremovable, that it is the last word and not the beginning of a series of steps. If it can be known that if a breakdown can be brought about—a breakdown may be brought about quite amicably and not by hostile action—then we shall have a chance of undoing the ill that we have done in establishing a Constitution on an un-English basis, it will make all the difference.

7.18 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I was not contemplating a prearranged breakdown of that kind. I was contemplating the last emergency, when the whole machinery of government has broken down. I cannot ask the Committee again to discuss a proposition of this kind without having an Amendment upon the Order Paper, but I did feel that on this Clause it was necessary to tell the Committee at this stage that we shall have to cover that particular contingency, in addition to the contingency which has been discussed. I wish to make it clear that nobody is prejudiced one way or the other by the proposal that I have made to look further into the matter and in due course to put a proposition on the Order Paper.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Since we are in such a very happy mood to-day could the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the breakdown to take place now, and stave off this elaborate procedure in the future?

7.19 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: The (Secretary of State has referred to the unprecedented position in which he finds himself as being in agreement with hon. Members opposite and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I, too, am in the unprecedented position of being in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping in the second of his two speeches. Seriously, I agree that this is a matter of very great importance, and we certainly cannot discuss it now. I would go further and say that it cannot be dealt with by an Amendment of any Clause. I think that a new Clause will have to be brought
forward to deal with the matter. Although it is not for me to give advice, I hope that we shall not pursue the matter any further until we discuss it when we see the new Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.20 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: Before we pass from this Clause, which is one of the most important in the Bill, because it deals with the provisions in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery. I should like to express an anxiety which is shared by several members of the Committee, namely, that the Clause contains no mention of specific authority to be given to the Governor-General for the special preservation of the frontier of India. I know that it can be argued that such power and authority is tacitly understood, in view of the fact that defence is a reserved subject, but at the same time it is not possible for the Governor-General to take all the necessary executive powers immediately into his hands, because he has to consult his ministers, and the local Governor is in the same position. This might lead to very tedious negotiations and delay at a time when quick action might be essential.
The necessity for such a provision seems to me to be exemplified by the difficulties which were experienced in the Cape by the Imperial Government just before the war in South Africa in 1899, which difficulties have been fully put forward in the Milner Papers. The situation that I have in mind in regard to the North West frontier of India might be of a kind parallel to the position which was experienced in the summer of 1899 in South Africa when in a single month before the outbreak of war 500 rifles and 1,000,000 rounds of ammunition were sent up from the Cape to the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, and every difficulty was raised by the Cape Government against the Imperial Government. I will not pursue the point, because I am putting it forward merely as a parallel, but it shows the kind of situation with which we may well be faced on the North West frontier of India. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider the Clause between now and the Report stage. I hope to be able to persuade him to agree with me on this
point, namely, that a stone thrown into the frontier pond throws ripples to the furthest parts of India. In the event of any trouble on the North West frontier the forces employed will depend entirely upon the perfect functioning of the entire administrative machinery throughout India. Keeping in mind that the General Headquarters of the Army is the centre of the spider's web, we must surely admit that the Governor-General in a crisis, possibly internal commotion as well as trouble on the frontier, would have to take over the telegraphic and postal services in order to ensure communications and the sending up of material and supplies. There is a considerable reserve of small arms and ammunition at the advanced bases of Quetta and Rawalpindi, but surely a situation should not be allowed to develop in which the frontier army and constabulary would have to depend entirely even if only for a time on these.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been listening to the hon. Member's speech and have been looking at the Clause very carefully, and it does not appear to me that it raises a question as to how the Government of India could be carried on. If the hon. Member is referring to the general defence of the frontier of India, this is not the place to raise the matter.

Mr. DONNER: I am sorry if I went beyond the bounds of order. I was trying to show that no specific authority, except tacit authority, is given to the Governor-General in the event of trouble on the North-West Frontier. If I am out of order I will not pursue the point, but I should he grateful if I could have an answer or if the Government would reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage. In view of the kind of situation to which I have drawn attention, and from the point of view that as the Bill now stands it will be necessary both for the local Governor and the Governor-General to consult his Ministers before taking action, and that may lead to undue delay, when quick action may be necessary, I do hope that I may have a satisfactory reply.

7.25 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I have no wish to revert to the discussion that has just ended, but I should like in a sentence to make the position a little clearer than I left
it. It occurred to me after I sat down that I had not made it clear. Suppose the emergency was brought to an end, namely, that you could not have an emergency lasting longer than, let us say, three years, we should not be left with no government in India at all. We should then revert to the provisions of this Act, and Parliament then would have to choose between reverting to the provisions of this Act or passing an amending Act. I make that point clear, not in any way to impose my views upon hon. and right hon. Members, but in order that they may keep it in mind when they consider further the proposition that in due course I shall make on the subject.
With regard to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner), I think that after the explanation that I shall be able to give to him he will find that the Amendment which he suggests is not needed. In any case, if it were needed, it would be out of place in Clause 45. This Clause deals with a situation when Ministerial responsibility has come to an end, when the whole machinery of government has broken down, and, as an emergency, the Governor-General takes over the whole system of government. On the other hand, defence, and the defence of the frontier, does not presuppose a breakdown of that kind in which the Governor-General takes over the whole of the Departments. It presupposes that the Governor-General is free to take any action that he thinks necessary to safeguard the reserved Department of defence, and to direct the Ministers and their Departments to take what action he thinks necessary to that end, even if those Departments may be only indirectly connected with the Defence Department.
What would happen in an emergency on the frontier would be that the Governor-General would be free at his discretion to deal with the Defence Department and to give directions, say, to the Railway Department in connection with the convoy of troops, or to the Post and Telegraph Department in regard to communications, and he would act with his Ministers. I think that in a case of that kind in nine cases out of 10 he would find the Ministers acting with him. So long as they act with him so much the better. If, on the other hand, the
Ministers failed to take the action that he told them to take he could force them to do so. His order to the Railway Department or to the Post and Telegraph Department would be the only valid order, and the Departments would have to carry it out. If the Ministers obstruct, then he is free to dismiss them. I think, therefore, the position is quite safe. If it were not, the question could not arise on this Clause, which deals with the total breakdown of the Constitution, in which the Ministers do not come in at all. My main answer is that with the reserved Departments and with the powers that the Governor-General has got outside the reserved Departments, the position, as far as I can judge, is quite safe.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: There is one point which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make quite clear. Do I understand that under his proposal that a suspension of the Constitution of this Bill, because of a crisis or emergency, is to endure only for a maximum period of time, however many Addresses are voted by Parliament, and that after the lapse of that time either the Federal Constitution under the Bill comes into operation again or there will have to be new legislation dealing with the whole question?

Sir S. HOARE indicated assent.

7.31 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is about the quickest change of mind I have ever come across even in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has completely altered his story. Five minutes ago he told us that a lapse of the Constitution would not last for more than three years. Now at the end of these three years all that will happen will be that the breakdown legislation will lapse, not the Constitution. We shall simply get back to the position we were in when the breakdown legislation was instituted. Thank you for nothing.

7.32 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: May I add my word to that of the right hon. and gallant Member. The cup has been dashed from the thirsty lips of many in this House and in India. We had hoped from what the Secretary of State said that if there was a breakdown of this character there was
a speedy way out of the mess. The Secretary of State has varied his phrases, and has certainly very much upset the right hon. and gallant Member and others of us. I want to enter one caveat. I hope that I shall be pardoned for uttering something in the nature of a realism, and that is that when the Secretary of State sincerely tells us that under certain conditions of breakdown the Governor-General will resume control of the country all I desire to say here and now is that such a thing will be absolutely impossible when you have Indianised the whole machinery upon which the Governor-General will have to rely.

CLAUSE 46.—(Governors' Provinces.)

7.33 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 30, line 35, to leave out "The North West Frontier Province."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it would be convenient if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with his Amendments to leave out the Province of Orissa and the Province of Sind as well.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They are entirely different. Some people are in favour of leaving the North West Frontier Province in, while others would be in favour of leaving out the Province of Orissa and the Province of Sind. In each case the considerations are completely different. I should not get much support for leaving out the North West Frontier Province except from Members of the Labour party, but probably I should get a great deal of support for leaving out the Province of Sind.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is this the only place in which we can have a general discussion on the question of the separation of the North West Frontier Province and Orissa and Sind, or can we have a discussion on the matter on Clause 271?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That Clause deals with the boundaries of Provinces and the method of dividing them. Let me deal with the North West Frontier Province. The question divides itself into two parts. In the first place, a good deal of the trouble in India to-day
comes from the frontier, and behind a great deal of the Moslem backing is the idea of getting a federation of the four frontier Provinces, the North West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, the Punjab and Sind. You are handing over to the overwhelmingly strong Moslem inhabitants of the North West Frontier Province control over their own affairs and over the gate of India from the north west. I have seen agitation after agitation coming over from Afghanistan, the Khalifate agitation in particular. It was extraordinarily strong in Peshawar at the time of that agitation. The Hindus hate the Moslems, yet you are giving them an opportunity of forming a Moslem Federation amongst the most warlike tribes of India are dominated by the most fanatical Moslems in India. From our own point of view it is most unwise to establish the same form of home rule in the North West Frontier Province that you are giving to a province 200 years further on in civilisation, like Madras or Bombay. It seems to me to be madness. There is an iron similarity about the treatment of all these Provinces as though there was no distinction whatever between them. The North West Frontier Province is the most backward politically and the most dangerous politically. It is aso the most intolerant, politically.
The question of setting up a frontier Province in the North-West Frontier has been one of the questions which has torn India for the last 15 years. It has always been a question whether it was in the direction of democracy that the North-West Frontier should have an independent government or whether it would mean the tyrannising of the Mohammedan majority over the Hindu minority. If the Punjab could be polled on the matter you would have a clear-cut division between the Sikhs and the Hindus on one side and the Moslems on the other. If the North-West Frontier could be polled you would have an overwhelming majority in favour of His Majesty's Government. We have to consider whether the majority will deal fairly with the minority. That is a question which we ought to put to ourselves whenever we give self-government to any unity in the Empire.

Earl WINTERTON: Would the right hon. and gallant Member apply the same
considerations to Provinces where the Hindus are in a majority?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, I think I would. I am arguing now that Parliament has no right to hand over to a hostile majority a helpless minority who are afraid of the transfer. If it was a fact that the Mohammedan minority in Madras objected to being handed over to a self-governing Madras I think it would be a question we should have to consider closer, especially as to whether there was any evidence of the probability of ill-treatment. That is as far as I would go. Take the case of Cyprus as an example. There is a small minority of Mohammedans, about one-sixth of the population, the rest are Christians. We have all along resisted the idea of handing Cyprus over to home rule because we could not desert that 18 per cent. Mohammedan population, who were bitterly terrified that we should go out and leave them to the mercy of the Christians. The same principle is applied in Palestine. We do not set up representative institutions in Palestine because we are afraid, and the Jews are afraid, that they would not get a fair deal at the hands of the Arab majority. I could go through the whole Empire and give examples as to how we try to bear in mind, whenever we are extending self-government, the risks to which a minority may be involved if self-government is granted. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will not deny that this should be a cardinal principle of the British Empire, that we should not remove our rule and substitute a rule which would be likely to be tyrannous and unfair towards the minorities.
Consider the case of the North West Frontier. About a year ago a horrible massacre of Hindus by the Moslems took place in that area, a massacre so similar to the pogroms against the Jews in other parts of the world that it is almost exactly the same problem. In Constantine we had the butchery of the Jews by Moslems. It represents exactly the same feeling. It is not a difference in race, caste, or religion. It is a depressed agricultural population suffering from severe economic depression revolting against the mercantile and town population who sell them goods and lend them money. The feeling between the Hindus and the Mohammedans is almost
exactly the same as the feeling between the Arabs and Jews in Constantine and Algiers. In both cases you have a civilised government looking on. The French Government is constantly alive to the fact that the Moslem finds his national and spiritual animosity revived when he sees his natural prey in the hereditary and historical enemy, the Jewish population. Let us realise that the more firmly we establish self-government in the North West Frontier Provinces the greater the risk; greater there than it is in Algiers or in Palestine. The massacres of 15 years ago may fall into significance by what may happen in Peshawar and other towns on the frontier across the Indus. So long as Pax Britannica runs they are safe. So long as they have British troops and police, controlled by the kind of commissioners we have had in Peshawar, peace is maintained and the safety of the minority is ensured.
How long is that going to continue? Is it the essence of this Bill that you should take a step as dangerous as that which you are taking in the case of the North West Frontier? I say to the Secretary of State that if the Bill goes through as it is he will be responsible for what may happen in that Province. The desire for self-government there is practically nonexistent. They are not a people clamouring for democracy, on the North West Frontier. They are clamouring for a great many other things which have nothing whatever to do with democracy. The situation of the Hindus is not an imaginary danger voiced by me; it is a danger ever present to the mind of every Hindu in the Punjab and throughout India. They know the treatment that they are likely to get when once law and order are in the hands of this new Administration, when all the machinery of civilisation is in the hands of people who regard them almost exactly as the Jews are regarded in the East of Europe, in Iraq or Algeria. There Jews are regarded as hereditary enemies, as they have been regarded for centuries. I think that if we knowingly take that step we shall be risking great dangers and flying in the teeth of the wishes of 270,000,000 Hindus. The case of the North West Frontier is perhaps worse. A remedy is most difficult because the area has already been set up as a Province.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: May I now have an answer to the point of Order I raised.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Since the hon. Member directed my attention to it, I have been looking at Clause 271. It appears to me that it might be more convenient to deal on that Clause with the question which the hon. Member wishes to raise.

Sir S. HOARE: Now.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman would rather take it now?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely if we leave in Orissa and Sind now we cannot discuss the question later. It would be quite impossible, if we agreed now to include these Provinces in the Federal scheme, to discuss Clause 271 as if we had not included them. I think the only possible course is to take them now.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am in the hands of the Committee.

Mr. NICHOLSON: It is a big question. I thought we were rather hurried just now.

7.49 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) wishes, I know, to be fair to all, but I cannot help saying that, no doubt quite unintentionally, in his speech he was very unfair to the Moslems. He seemed to suggest that the communal troubles in India were exclusively the result of Moslem intolerance. I do not wish to assign the blame more to one community than to another.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the communal troubles or the communal question?

Sir S. HOARE: The communal troubles. We all regret the communal excesses. Not one single community is responsible for them. There is a black history behind Hindus as well as Moslems, and it does not help better feeling in India if a right hon. Gentleman in this House takes the side of one community and implies that the fault is with one community and not with the other.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not want to be unfair. In every case it is the
majority who hammer the minority. In the North West Frontier the Mohammedans happen to be in the majority and there is trouble there on one side. In Lucknow or in the case of the Moplahs you have a Hindu majority, and they do the same thing.

Sir S. HOARE: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that addendum to his speech. In his speech he talked about the Moslems, and the general impression that he left on my mind, and I think on the mind of many others, was that these excesses invariably started with Moslems and not with anyone else. Let me turn to the Amendment. It is intended to abrogate the present position of the North West Frontier Province as a Province, and not to make it a federal unit under the Bill. I cannot imagine a more unwise or more dangerous action for the Committee to take than to go back upon a decision that we came to about three years ago after a great deal of consideration.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who were "we"?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government here.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not Parliament.

Sir S. HOARE: The Government here, after the fullest possible consideration and after a lot of consultation with Indians of various schools of thought. One of the great troubles upon the Frontier in India was the inferior status of the North West Frontier Province. I went into the question with an unbiassed mind, and the more I did so the more I was convinced that a great deal of the trouble in the North West Frontier Province was due to that cause. If hon. Members will look back three years they will find that the trouble then was very serious. The whole Province was rife with agitation under the Red Shirts. A great many hon. Members thought that that was a Communist movement. It was nothing of the kind. It was a movement the force of which arose from this feeling of inferiority amongst the Pathans.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Pathans never feel inferiority and never will.

Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is quite infallible about all these things. I can only tell
him, from such information as I have been able to gather, with much less access to the facts than he possesses, that I gathered the view, and it was the view of all my responsible advisers in India, that the Pathan, thinking himself superior to many other people in India, resented intensely the fact that other Provinces had constitutions of their own, and that he had a very inferior imitation of a constitution. Very wisely I think we took the view that the time was overdue when the Province should be constituted a full Governor's Province. We did that, and the result has been almost the total elimination of the very dangerous Red Shirt movement. That is sufficient justification for the action we took.
If we now went back on that action and put back the Province into a position of inferiority compared with any other Province, we should be making the gravest possible mistake. I do not believe that the Pathans will not be able to manage their Constitution extremely well. They are a very vigorous race. Although the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme may deny it, they have a good deal of aptitude for democratic government—more aptitude than some of the other communities. I do not at all look forward with anxiety to the future of the Constitution in the North West Frontier Province. In that Province no less than in the others there will be safeguards for the minority. The Governor will have the special responsibility to safeguard their position. Further than that, the Governor of the North West Frontier Province will act as Agent-General to the Viceroy, and will have a special position in the tribal districts. In those districts he will act at his own discretion. I hope I have said enough to impress upon the Commitee the gravity of the mistake they would make if they differentiated between the North West Frontier Provine and other Provinces, and the grave unrest that would be created from one end of India to the other if we went back on the decision taken three years ago.

7.56 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I would like to refer to one point in the argument of the right hon. and gallant
Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I think he was under a misapprehension in assuming that the Hindu-Moslem trouble of the North West Frontier would be more acute because of the smallness of the Hindu minority. I do not in the least wish to underrate the problem. It happens that I passed through the bazaar at Kohat in 1924, on the night of the massacre to which he referred just now. The mere fact that the Hindu minority is small does not increase the danger to it. I suggest that the mere fact that it is a very small minority tends the reverse way. It may well be that the Hindu minority are in a position of greater danger now when they are, so to speak, under the protection of outside authority than they will be when they have to mind their p's and q's, for under more responsible Government they will not dare to do some of the things they do now under the shelter of the British Raj and thereby incur the hatred of the Pathans.
There is in point of fact a very high degree of toleration among the Pathans for minorities of all kinds. For example: Pathans vis-a-vis sweepers, etc. show a high measure of tolerance, and their intense antipathy to the Banias at the moment is largely due, as I have just said, to the fact that these latter get uppish relying upon special Protection, the Hindu minority are an essential economic factor, and the Mohammedans know it. It is in areas like the United Provinces where we get a fairly even balance between Mohammedans and Hindus that the, communal problem is the most troublesome.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: The Secretary of State made a statement of the first importance before he sat down. He said that the Governor of the North West Frontier Province would fulfil the functions of Agent-General of the Governor- General for tribal areas. I wish to ask whether he means that the agent of the Governor-General must inevitably be Governor of the North West Frontier Province? On page 834 of the Order Paper the right hon. Gentleman has an Amendment which I interpret as meaning—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We had better deal with that Amendment when we reach it.

Mr. NICHOLSON: I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether it is inevitable that the Governor of the North West Frontier should be the agent of the Governor-General for the tribal areas, or whether it would be in the power of the Governor-General to make other arrangements.

Sir S. HOARE: We contemplate that the same official would hold both posts when it is possible.

8.0 p.m.

Sir A. KNOX: I would like to ask if it is impossible to go back on the arrangement we made three years ago and constitute the North West Frontier Province a Chief Commissioner's Province. I cannot believe that the ordinary Pathan as I know him is really thinking about his status at all. As a good fighting man he knows he is better than the non-fighting races and he knows he is far better off under the jurisdiction of the English. He has not worried about getting representative government and when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Red Shirt movement was because the Pathan wanted to be represented, he is wrong. The Red Shirt movement prospered because the Government of India at the time was the weakest Government the country had ever seen. There was such concern that the "Times" newspaper, as usual not very well informed in Indian matters, said that if anyone touched Abdul Ghafur it would raise a blaze all along the frontier. That agitator was arrested one morning and nothing happened. All that was wanted was the firm government to which the Pathans were accustomed. The right hon. Gentleman said that the last election, when the Franchise Committee were in India, was a great success. We know from other sources that it was an absolute farce. People could not get to the polling booths. They went in terror of their lives and had to creep there at night. I cannot think that if the people of England knew the conditions of the North West Frontier they would believe that it is fit for representative government.

8.2 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is always very scornful of
every contribution I make to the Debate. I am certain he is not always right and I always wrong.

Sir S. HOARE: I would not say that for a moment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are all trying to bring to this problem the best knowledge we have of India. I do not pretend to have any great knowledge of India. I only pretend to a knowledge of English history and the principles on which we govern ourselves. The real thing is the speech of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. He knows these people, he has lived there. His view is that the Bunya Hindu is more likely to get knocked on the head because he is under English protection and that when English protection is withdrawn he will not be knocked on the head. That may be so or not, but I do not think we ought to take that as a good reason why we should remove our protection. If the prospective knockee is afraid of what will happen when we go, I think that we should be guided by that in the course we pursue. The right hon. Gentleman said that I feared the Moslems and not the Hindus. The Moslems have an enormous superiority complex; it is the Hindus who have an inferiority complex. A Mohameddan knows he is capable of taking on six Hindus. That is the danger from people who are so superior; that is the real risk in India. Both sides have contributed to the murders, but I should say that the greatest risk always comes from the man who thinks he is able to do it. The real issue is this absurd system of communal representation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not really dealing with that subject to-night.

Amendment negatived.

8.4 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 30, line 36, to leave out "Orissa."
The next Province I would save from the Constitution is Orissa. The case for Orissa is completely different from the case for the North West Frontier Province. We can safely say that there will be no communial riots in the new Province. There are few Mohammedans
there, and the issues involved are completely different. I have heard it said that the Government are setting up a Province in Orissa to balance the North West Frontier Province. However that may be, the argument for Orissa is different. The population is perhaps 16,000,000. Of these nearly half are aboriginal tribes in the North and the West, some of the most prehistoric tribes in India, the sort of people about whom Kipling wrote. These people are in reserved tribal areas, and the great part of the Province of Orissa is of that backward description which requires direct administration. The rest of Orissa on the South has been cut off from the Province of Madras on the ground that they speak a different language. In Madras they speak two completely different languages, Tamil in the South and Telego in the North, and English everywhere. Half the Province is tangled jungle, and on the coast you have a Hindu Orissa population which has hitherto been attached to Madras or Bihar. Why has the Government set up this new Province. If you establish a Governor's Province you establish inevitably an extraordinary expensive system. The Governor and all the Ministers have to be paid at the same rate as if they were Cabinet Ministers here. The entire establishment is an expensive establishment, and the whole population of Orissa cannot be more than 10,000,000 excluding the savage tribes. That is an extremely small unit to have inflicted upon it the most expensive form of Indian administration.
Why is it being done? They have cut off the Southern part of Bihar and the Northern part of Madras to create this new Province. What has been the object? I think it is true that in times past the Congress party have been working on the idea that the Provinces of India should be remodelled on units that speak the same language, and there have been resolutions in favour of an independent Orissa for some time before the Congress. Latterly the Indian desire to have a separate Province of Orissa has died out, and there have been protests from the inhabitants of the seaport whose name I cannot pronounce in the South. The Hindus are objecting to it. The Orissa population are not anxious for it, and the inhabitants of the jungles do not know about it. Why is it being done? There really must be some idea for establishing
this Province. We have to set up there a new governor, new salaries and new jobs, in order to carry out promises that may have been made by the Joint Select Committee to some representations they may have had.
I am told that the desire for self-government in Orissa is very much like the desire for self-government in Scotland—that they have a desire to preserve their culture, and a desire to be united. If the desire for union in Orissa is about as weak as the desire for Home Rule in Scotland and comes from the same source—the intelligentsia—I think it may be discounted a little. How can you expect a population as small as that to meet the expenses of Government similar to those in Bihar or Bengal. What is the object of inflicting upon a new constitution so big a charge as this? There is no pressure of public opinion in favour of it except from the intellectuals. There are protests from everybody in the country who will have to pay the taxes and the greater part of the country has a population which would be better governed by Englishmen in the interest of a number of uncivilised tribes.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I have a little difficulty in recognising the geography, the population, the fianance or the opinions of the inhabitants of Orissa in the account given by the right hon. and gallant Member. I have taken a certain interest in this question for some little time, ever since I served on the Simon Commission. We came to the conclusion that there was a case for a Province of Orissa. Orissa is not a very large part judged by Indian standards. I think its population is something between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000. I do not know why the right hon. and gallant Member should be so scornful of it. He is a great supporter of Palestine. Why should he not hand back Palestine which is very small, and with a small population? There has been a continuous agitation in Orissa for many years. The Oriya speaking peoples were divided. A small number come under Bengal. The majority of Oriyas were at the time of the repartition of Bengal united with Bihar and Chota Nagpur areas quite dissimilar, and without' common interests with them.
When on the Statutory Commission I saw their representatives, they told me that if they wanted to get to their capital they had to travel 650 miles. Another portion of them were in the Central Provinces. Another large portion of them formed part of Madras. Madras is an enormous Province straggling right away round to Malabar and the Oriyas are included in it as a small minority. I do not believe that in these very large Provinces, these 45,000,000 and 50,000,000-Provinces in India you do get adequate self-expression and self-government, particularly when you have a people, as disconnected as those in the Presidency of Madras, speaking not two but five languages. What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said as to the large number of aborigines is true. There is a large number of aborigines collected together more or less loosely and extending up towards the north, but at present those people are cut up into sections and in different Provinces. Surely for their future development it is better that they should come together. Also, in so far as they speak any language apart from their own, they speak Oriya. These backward areas will be kept apart from the direct administration area. Whether they are in Madras or Orissa they will have special administration which I think is very necessary to prevent their exploitation. It is very necessary that they should be looked after properly. If you have an aboriginal population cut off in a Province of, say, 40,000,000 population, their voices are not likely to be heard nearly as much as if they formed part of a Province where there is a very strong feeling of racial and almost national sentiment. That is the case in Orissa, where the people have an outlook and a language of their own.
Then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that they cannot afford the expense of setting up the new Province. That is an extremely fallacious argument. It is true that Orissa is a deficit area at the present time but there are many such areas, and why should the deficit of Orissa be borne by Bihar? By a mere administrative act Orissa and Bihar were tied together and Bihar had to pay taxes in order to keep Orissa. I do not see any reason why that charge should be put on Bihar. If necessary,
it should be put on the whole of India. But if you take the line of having au administration which depends upon each separate entity being financially self-contained then you get right away from any idea of popular self-government. You have what you had in the days of bureaucratic rule, parts of the country joined to others for purely financial considerations so that the richer may contribute to the poorer parts. That may be all right under a bureaucratic system, but under a system of self-government it is quite unfair that a certain deficit area should be placed on the finances of another wholly distinct area just because they happen to be contiguous.
I admit that there will be some increased cost under the new arrangement. There is bound to be, but the increase will not be as much as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made out. I have gone into the figures many times and the increase is pretty small, taking into account the charges which will be necessary when Orissa becomes a separate Province. Even suppose it to be necessary to impose more taxation on Orissa you will get it from them far more willingly if they are running their own show than if they are merely part of a heterogeneous province such as are Bihar and Orissa. The only point that remains is that in regard to protests by minorities. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to difficulties in connection with some seaport which he did not name and which I did not recognise. No one knows the minorities question better than he does and while I admit that there are objections from some of the peoples on the borderline of these territories, it is the case that in trying to demarcate territories you are always bound to have a little slopping over of the border here and there. You cannot divide people absolutely according to language, race or religion.
The Simon Commission went into this question in great detail and on the Joint Select Committee we examined it very closely and came to certain conclusions with regard to this border line. There is bound to be a certain amount of objection wherever you draw the line and you have to try to draw it, as best you can, so as to have the minimum of objection and inconvenience. I think on the whole the objections to the new Province in this
respect are very small and I think that such objections as exist are offset by the great advantages of the change. In most of the Provinces of India you will have these different problems, linguistic and otherwise, but I think that in Orissa you will have a more homogeneous people probably than anywhere else in India. You will have the backward areas under a special administration, you will have a body of people overwhelmingly Hindu and overwhelmingly Oriya-speaking. I think there will be a chance there of starting off the Province free from a great many of the troubles which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated. The claim of the people of Orissa has been put forward for many years—right back to the time of Lord Curzon and even before—and has often been acknowledged to be founded on justice, and I hope that this Committee will not disappoint them now.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is to be congratulated on what is for him a really auspicious occasion. I hardly like to refer to the hon. Gentleman as the father of the Oriyas but he can certainly be called the godfather of the new Province of Orissa for I understand that he was chairman of the subcommittee which originally recommended the setting up of this Province. I agree with him that there has been a real popular demand in Orissa for some machinery to preserve the national culture and the language of the Oriya. They have suffered very much from cultural invasions by other races. It is claimed that in the Midnapore district of Bengal, 40 or 50 years ago, there were over half-a-million Oriya speakers and Oriyas by race, while, in 1931, there were only 45,000 Oriya speakers. It is true, I believe, that unless something is done to preserve Oriya culture it will be swamped.
I am not so sure, however, that you will get perfect homogeneity, even under the new system. I was at a High School prize-giving in Orissa recently and I heard recitations given by the children in six languages including, I must admit, English and Sanscrit. The others were Urdu, Bengali, Oriya and Khond. My quarrel with the provisions of this Clause is that I do not think it was necessary to set up all the expensive machinery of
a Governor's Province. I do not believe that the creation of a separate Province is the only way of preserving national culture, and I fear that the consequences of this Clause may be disastrous all over India. I do not think that the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse will ever be forgotten in Orissa when they have to pay for all the cost of setting up a Governor's establishment with separate headquarters for winter and summer and all the rest of it, and the whole set of services attaching to a Province.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It will give employment.

Mr. NICHOLSON: The aspect of the question to which I was referring has only been touched upon very lightly so far, and I hope that whoever replies for the Government will tell the Committee what the extra cost will be. Though the question of the boundaries of the Province hardly arises on this Clause I should like in case we are not allowed to discuss it later on to say that some people think they are very unsatisfactory. But my real point is this. In acceding to the undoubted demand of the Oriyas and in agreeing to provide the machinery for the creation of a new Province we are striking at the whole structure of India as it exists to-day and at Federal India as we envisage it in the future. If you accede to the demand of the Oriyas for a separate Province I cannot see what on earth there is to prevent you from acceding to the demand of the Telegus, or the Kanarese or the Mahrattas or any other of the many races of India who may think that they would do better if they had separate Provinces of their own with the consequent increase in the loaves and fishes. I think it would have been possible in the past to have created some sort of sub-province, complicated no doubt, that would have retained the Oriyas' self-respect and would not have separated them from Bihar. Bihar has been paying for a lot of Oriyas ever since the creation of the Province, and I do not see any point in disturbing what has worked satisfactorily simply for the sake of the pleasure of creating a new Province. I hope the Committee will not pass this Clause without realising that it contains the germs of many Home Rule movements and of many Irelands all over
India, and I hope the Committee will insist on the Government stating clearly what the extra cost of Orissa will be, how it is going to be met, why it is necessary to have a separate summer station at Puri for the new Government, and so on. While congratulating the hon. Member for Limehouse on the success of his scheme, I hope the Committee will not pass it with its eyes shut.

8.27 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: This is a scheme which, from any knowledge that I possess of India and the system under which it has been governed, is almost ridiculous. You take an area which has been run by one Commissioner, and you turn it into a Governor's Province, with a full-fledged legislature, with a governor, so many ministers, advocates-general, financial advisers, and what not of various kinds. It is a most extravagant step to take. As far as I can recollect, though no doubt the Under-Secretary of State could give me more figures, there will be a perpetual deficit of 30 lakhs a year. You may ask any Bengal or Bihar officer you please, but it is well known the contribution of Orissa to the Bihar Legislative Council is small and not equal to holding their own in the rest of the Province, and that means that they are very backward. The Oriyas in the Sambalpur petitioned to join with the rest of Orissa, which was then part of Bengal and had been ever since the British rule began there until 1912, and directly the district was transferred there because it was the only district in the Central Provinces which was an Oriya district, they have done nothing but regret it, because other Oriyas came up there from Cuttack and more or less ousted the local Brahmins.
These movements are mostly agitated by a few people, and if you can make new capital and many of that kind see themselves and their relatives provided with a great many more jobs than before, or see the value of land rising, that is good enough for them, but the vast majority of the people of Orissa will be backward wherever they are and large numbers of the ordinary aborigines do not understand these things and do not care twopence what form of government their Province is under. There is, of course, an exception in the case of a small intelligentsia, who are naturally
anxious to get the loaves and fishes. I am not blaming them. It means that the new Province is largely fomented by the particular class who can see they will benefit by it, and as for looking after the aborigines any better than they were looked after before, I cannot see them doing it. They are bilingual on the borders, and everyone claims to be an Oriya. If you want to go over to that side of the border, a man will claim that he is a Telugu, and if you want to go over the other side, he will claim he is an Oriya. Whenever you come, as the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said, to a place where there is no actual natural boundary, you will find all over the place different kinds of people, and if you please one lot here, you displease 50 per cent. of the population there. It is not worth while; and the Government should have taken some areas over without offending the Telugus, which would have made a Chief Commissioner's Province, and they would have been very lucky to get that form of government for which they can afford to pay.
For administrative reasons this scheme is sheer folly, for financial reasons it is extravagant, and for political reason's it is mostly make-belief. When you begin to take these half-and-half people, you cause far more discontent than satisfaction, and there is no particular gain in that. It is all interlaced with the Oriya States, which were hitherto managed by a commissioner and a political agent, who also belonged to the Province. Now I understand that all these States, instead of being managed by those who have managed them all these years and who thoroughly understood the Oriya people, are going to be put under a political agent at Ranchi, which is far away. As for the Government of India, they will not know where these people are or anything about them. All their political side was managed in the past by a commissioner and a political agent. They are doing the same thing elsewhere.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: They are in indirect relation with the Government of India.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: They have their political agents there. Then, of course, besides these objections there are the finances. I do not fancy for a moment that the estimates put up cover all the expenses that arise through making a new
Province. You may just cover the claims of the new Governor and of a certain amount of buildings, but when you create a new Province it soon demands its own university and a high court, and it wants to have its own experts. If it is going to be a separate Province, they ask what is the use of being a separate Province, having to go to Calcutta for a university and having to share experts with another Province.

Mr. ATTLEE: As a matter of fact, where you have a smaller Province like Assam, they use Calcutta universities.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: Orissa will surely demand more than Assam does. The last point I have to make is that you are letting yourself in for every kind of similar claim. How are you going to make a Gwalior Province in Orissa for 6,000,000 Oriya speaking in that Province, and what answer will you give to Telegus if they say they want a new Province? That makes 18,000,000. How can you deny that? Then, for anything I know, Malabar will say they want to be transferred, leaving the Tamil areas. A still stronger claim will probably arise from the Hindi-speaking districts of the Central Province to be separated from the Marathi-speaking districts that I know very intimately.
Here we are talking about India as one nation; that is the argument; and yet you are going to separate it off into Provinces so that you cannot have even two races in one Province without their wanting to have separate Provinces. If two races cannot get along well enough in a Province as they have done under British rule for years, how are all the races of India to make one solid Indian nation? It is a contradiction in terms, and entirely illogical. If you had given them a chief commissioner, all would have been well, provided that you had said so from the first. For these reasons, I support the omission of Orissa.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I shall do my best to answer the right hon. Gentleman and those who have intervened in this important discussion about the future of the province of Orissa, and I shall endeavour to answer some of the points that have been raised as to the extra cost involved and give any details that come to mind in answer to the points that have been raised. I was not able
to follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle- under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who moved the Amendment in all his geographical descriptions. He described Orissa as having been the scene of the "Jungle Book" by Kipling and described by him, and he alluded to the various tribes—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the Waingunga lies on the western edge of the United Provinces adjoining the new Province?

Mr. BUTLER: I do not want to enter into a literary discussion, but I believe that Kipling's famous visit when he described so many of these things took place at Jhodapur on the other side of the province, and the Waingunga river, I understand, is in a different portion of India from that which we are considering to-day. I am a great lover and student of Kipling, and we all appreciate the "Jungle Book," and I hope that we shall in considering this question have regard to literary accuracy, as well as to the importance of the subject before us. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say there had been a great many protests from Orissa. With regard to the protests of the population, that is not the intelligence that has reached us. We found that the suggestion that there should be a separate province for Orissa met with satisfaction from the Oriyas, to whom it gave great relief that their age-long desire to be regarded as a separate province and a separate unit of India would at last be achieved if Parliament agrees to the proposals of this Clause.
Orissa has had a long history. It is one of the most ancient centres of Hindu culture and religion. In Orissa, as the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) will know, are some of the finest, oldest and most venerated temples in India, which were the centres of the early pilgrimages from all parts of India. The great feature of Oriya civilisation is that, in spite of the fact that they have very often not formed one unit, so strong has been the nationalism of the Oriyas that they have always clung together and looked forward to the great day when they would be united in one province. On the strength of this historical perspective, I think it is probably
realised by the Committee that there is a long history behind this matter.
Coming to more recent events, nobody can speak on this subject with more authority than the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who took such a prominent part in investigating this matter for the Statutory Commission. I do not think that the hon. Member for Morpeth exaggerated in any way the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman in regard to this Province, and I do not doubt that there is a proper sense of gratitude among the Oriyas towards him. In his contribution to-day the hon. Gentleman touched on many of the arguments in favour of this new Province. He reminded us that the Statutory Commission felt that the present link between Orissa and Bihar is a glaring example of the artificial connection of areas which are not naturally related, and he could have told us from his own personal knowledge, and indeed he suggested it, that when the Oriya delegation visited the Statutory Commission, they actually travelled by sea via Calcutta in order to reach Patna, which was the head of their Province.
These facts have a large bearing on the question of how Orissa is to be administered in future. Besides these reasons—the awkwardness of the link with Bihar and the strong Oriya feeling—there is the fact that in Orissa there will be a greater homogeneity of population than in any other single unit in India. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment always dislikes anything to do with the communal question, and I should have thought he would be the first person to welcome this opportunity to have a Province in which the communal question will be as small and as little to the front as in any other part of India. That is a cause for satisfaction and it is another reason, together with his other reasons, for proceeding to set up a new Province of Orissa. With regard to the question of future expense, the expense of the new Province of Orissa can be clearly stated as follows: The new overhead charges resulting from running Orissa as a Governor's Province will amount to approximately 15 lakhs of rupees. Besides this, an extra amount of 15 lakhs will be necessary for running the Province. A total subvention of 30 lakhs will be neces-
sary from central revenues for the purpose of running the new Province.
I think it would be wise to remind the Committee that we shall be discussing on Clause 139 the problem of subsidies to deficit Provinces, and therefore I shall go no further into the matter now. Besides this there will be an extra sum for establishing the requisite buildings for the new Province at Cuttack, which was referred to on page 51 of Volume 3 of the Records of the Joint Select Committee, which have already been presented to the House. There will be a small extra sum over this involved in the probable readjustment of boundaries at certain points in the new Province of Orissa. But the Committee may take it that the round figure of 30 lakhs of rupees which I have given as the necessary subvention from central revenues approximately covers the new cost of the Province of Orissa, apart from the actual establishment of new buildings. Of this sum 15 lakhs of rupees is what the new Province requires in the way of overhead charges when run as a Province, and 15 lakhs is the sum required for running the Province. That extra sum of 15 lakhs would have had to be found by Bihar in any case, and so it is merely a case of the transference of a burden of 15 lakhs from Bihar to the Centre, a point which the Committee will consider when we come to the specific Clause dealing with these transactions. That gives the Committee a clear indication that the extra cost falling on the revenues as a result of making the new Province is only somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 lakhs.
When the Committee appreciate that Bihar has recently suffered a great drain on its resources owing to the earthquake, they will see—without wishing to exaggerate this argument at all—that it will materially assist Bihar that she should, at this moment, be relieved of the sum which is necessary to finance the new Province of Orissa. I have endeavoured to answer as shortly and as concisely as I can the various points raised, but I sincerely hope that the Committee will realise that intense disappointment would be aroused in the Oriyas if the Committee were to accept the Amendment. Anticipations have been aroused. The future Orissa Province has been discussed since the statement of the Statutory Commission and the report of the committee over which my hon. Friend
opposite presided. The matter has been reviewed by several committees and the general consensus of opinion is that it would be wise in this case to establish the new Province of Orissa, and in view of the great advantage which we think will be taken by the inhabitants of this new Province and the new opportunities afforded, I sincerely hope the Committee may come to a favourable decision.

8.50 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was scornful about my geography and politics generally, but as far as I could see he was merely re-stating all the facts and figures I had given, with the exception of the site of Rudyard Kipling's adventures, and on that point he was joined by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am prepared to stand an examination against any hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have been there. All I venture to suggest is that that place and Chota Nagpur are not very far apart when one comes to look at the map. But whether Chota Nagpur is there or somewhere else is not very material to the issue, although I admit the importance of literal accuracy. I understand now that we are to have a separate Province of Orissa because it is 600 miles to get to Patna from Orissa, but I suggest that for less than 30 lakhs of rupees aeroplanes could be hired to carry people backwards and forwards. The sum of 30 lakhs of rupees for a population of 10,000,000 seems to me to be excessive. The real objection is to be found in the Southern boundary. When the godfather of the Oriyas was drawing up the boundaries I will bet that he put that boundary as far south as he could. There are many who are suffering from the godfather of the Oriyas, and why the Telugu should be torn off from Madras in order to provide a tax-paying population for the Oriyas I cannot understand. But they are people who might be considered when we come to Clause 271 and the boundaries for the Provinces.

Mr. ATTLEE: I would like to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on one point. He accuses me of having pushed the boundary as far as possible south. On the contrary, I was severely criticised by the Oriyas, who, like all oppressed nationalities, wanted to take in all the
surrounding areas, and we cut down the extent of the area.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 30, line 36, leave out "Sind."
Sind is the third Province we wish to save from the Constitution. I dare not give the exact population, or I shall be corrected, but we can say with some degree of accuracy that 15 per cent. of the population are Hindu and 85 per cent. are Moslems. Anybody who has been there may correct me, but not if he has not been there. The minority is small and there is no Province in which the communal question comes up more prominently. The minority of 15 or 20 per cent. have no votes for the people who will rule that Province. They have communal representation, but they are not allowed to vote for a Moslem. That is the prime fact which the Committee must realise before they can understand the agitation there is among the Hindus all over India to save Sind from being created an independent Province. Sind is not like the North-West Frontier Province, it is a Province which is developing rapidly. The Lloyd barrage and all the irrigation works down the Indus are opening up an enormous new area for settlers from the overcrowded parts of India. The land there is Government land and the Government sell it to the people to settle upon. An enormous immigrant population is pouring into the country. The immigrants are Hindus very largely, whereas the indigenous population are largely Mohammedan. It is a small minority at present, but it will grow with the development of irrigation.
To that population, all of it dependent entirely upon agriculture, the question of the legislation that is likely to be enforced in that Province is of enormous, even transcendent, importance. They know perfectly what their danger is. It is not that they will not get justice, not that they will not get education, but that they will be excluded from cultivating the land. The sort of legislation that prevails in the Punjab is what they are afraid of. For the Committee to understand why Sind does not want to be a Governor's Province it is absolutely essential that I should make clear the meaning of the land alienation Clause, which looks harmless and desirable because it merely
enacts that no one who does not belong to an agricultural caste or clan shall be allowed to buy land. The agricultural caste can sell to other members of the caste but they cannot sell to a person who is not a member.
There are agricultural castes which are Hindu as well as others who are Moslems, but the resident agricultural caste consists of Mohammedan peasants and, unfortunately, Mohammedan landlords. The landlords are gradually acquiring more and more land, so that the peasant is being driven to work and the landlord is becoming the owner and the latifundia of Sind. That is all assisted by the fact that in the Punjab the agriculturists can only sell to the agricultural caste. They only touch a certain amount, because the Mohammedan landlord is a member of the agricultural caste, although he does not use a spade. These are the only persons available. The alternative, which is always held out with such horror, is that of a Hindu bunnia, the friend of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) and the enemy of the Mohammedan, himself buying the land. He would not cultivate it, but he would let it to somebody else. That is another form of landlordism, but not a worse form than the ownership of the land by Mohammedan landowners.
This legislation has been passed in the Punjab largely because of the universal prejudice against the Hindu landlord, and that legislation is what the Hindus fear in Sind. It does not matter in the Punjab, because there are more of the Hindu agricultural caste, but if you extend that legislation to Sind, where the agricultural Hindu population is nil, and where you get the vast Sukkur and Lloyd barrages, irrigating millions of acres which were never irrigated before, the question, "Are we to be allowed to cultivate the land?" becomes of far greater importance than in the Punjab. If legislation is to be brought into Sind which shuts out not an existing population but all the immigrant population which was poured into that Province, a grave injustice will be committed also against the Hindus of the over-populated and overcrowded places all over the rest of India, such as the population in Cutch, where, according to the latest census, they are packed 400 people to the square mile, all engaged in agriculture, an area probably more densely populated and
cultivated than in any other part of the world. That population is being driven out of those overcrowded areas and is spreading away to the only possibility, a newly irrigated land.
That land will, of course, be Government land, and the Government will let it on hire purchase systems to both Hindus and Mohammedans. Both will start, but directly they acquire their rights, if legislation such as has been enforced in the Punjab is introduced into Sind, they will be limited, and they can only sell that land to people of the agricultural caste of that Province. Nobody else will be able to come in, the market will be tied down and the Mohammedan landlords will then begin to buy, and to create large estates and establish the curse of landlordism in that Province. That fear would be completely obviated if it were possible to allow the growing Hindu population the right to vote for the Legislative Council at Karachi. If they had the right to vote for their masters they would get an elementary form of justice. Can the Committee understand what it means to them to be in such a position that no Mohammedan will ever ask them for a vote because he will not demean himself by doing so? The system of communal recommendation is not the protection of a minority but the protection of the majority against ever having to consider the minority.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going too far. I cannot pass that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I admit I was travelling rather wide, but it is absolutely necessary if Members of the Committee are to understand the opposition which exists in India to the setting up of a separate province of Sind, that they should understand the reason of it. The reason is partly fear of that legislation and partly the knowledge that they are not likely to have a fair deal in the representative institutions of that Province. We could put it all right if we could have a province where the majority desires to have communal representation and no separate electorate. We should have in that province no opposition to the establishment of Sind, and a great many other things in this Bill would go.
The Government have given no indication that they are prepared to carry out the desire of the Joint Select Committee,
or to take into account the desire of the minority to be protected from this pseudo-protection of separate representation. Sind should not be a separate province. Until now it has been part of Bombay, and under Bombay it has had an increasingly prosperous time. As long as it is part of Bombay, the province is balanced fairly and evenly between Mohammedan and Hindu. Take it away and establish an overwhelmingly large Mohammedan government in Sind, and you injure the rest of Bombay by making it proportionately more Hindu. You leave all the seeds of dissension in your communal representation, and you injure the population both in the North part and in the South part of the Bombay Presidency. I hope this matter will be reconsidered. The pressure for a separate province of Sind comes from Mohammedans, from that Moslem agitation and Nationalism which is spreading throughout the East at the present time. It is a desire to have one more Mohammedan Province, one more State, so that a Mohammedan federation of States should spread all over the North-East of India. I hope the Government will consider whether it is not possible, even at this hour, to save India from trouble and Sind from disaster.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: I must confess that I had not expected that this question would be debated to-day, and, unfortunately, like many other Members of the Committee, I have come without the notes which I had carefully collected and without the evidence submitted to the Joint Select Committee, and therefore I am unable to quote from that evidence, as I had hoped and intended to do when the subject of Sind was to be discussed on Clause 271. I must, therefore, in speaking to the Committee, depend entirely upon my memory, and I hope the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong in any of the facts which I put forward.
I would ask the Committee seriously to consider this question of Sind. Here you have in miniature the whole picture of the Bill as it stands at present. The proposal of the Government is really quite simple; it is a proposal to remove Sind from the Presidency of Bombay and create a separate Province. The position is that in the Presidency of Bombay
there is a big Hindu majority, and in Sind there is a big Moslem majority. Therefore, naturally the Hindus of Sind are very much opposed to being transferred from the Presidency of Bombay to a separate Province, and equally the Mohammedans in Sind are, naturally, delighted. I would like the Committee to remember the evidence, which I am sure all hon. Members have read with care, which was submitted to the Joint Select Committee on this subject. Of all the evidence submitted to the Committee, none presents a more tragic or pitiable spectacle than that submitted on this proposal. The fear and terror which inspire this minority in Sind is, to me at any rate, a dreadful thing to read about. The minority are terrified, and in their terror they tell the truth as they see it. May I draw attention, first of all, to the financial difficulties? Here again I have not my notes with me, and do not remember the figures, so perhaps the Under-Secretary will be good enough to deal with that side of the question, as he is naturally more fully aware of the financial difficulties than I can be. All I can say is that they are very great.
In the evidence submitted to the Joint Select Committee it was made perfectly clear that the minority, the Hindus, were terrified as to what would happen to them, and I remember that in that evidence particular mention was made of the preservation of law and order. What would be their position, they asked, if, in some other part of India, there were a massacre of Mohammedans by Hindus? It was pointed out that of course, if there were a breakdown of law and order, the Governor would intervene, but they were not satisfied with that, and asked that the police should be a reserved subject in that Province should it be created, and, of course, they were told that that could not be done. The question which was emphasised in the evidence was at what point could the Governor interfere to save the lives and property—

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to be very careful that he does not travel beyond this particular Clause, which deals merely with the inclusion of Sind as a Province. He has referred already to certain matters that
occur in later Clauses of the Bill, but he must not go into those in detail.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: On a point of Order. I believe it has been ruled that this point cannot be raised on Clause 271—that the implication of my hon. Friend would be an impossible one to put forward on that Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: That is quite right. As I understand it, the point cannot be raised again as to whether Sind shall be a Governor's Province. But I want to warn the hon. Member that there are certain matters to which he is quite justified in referring—as for instance the problem of minorities—but that he must not go in detail into the question of how communal minorities are treated under this Bill. I do not want the hon. Member to think that I am making a serious complaint against him, but I wanted to warn him that he was developing some of his points, to which he is quite justified in referring, just a little too much.

Mr. DONNER: I am sorry if I transgressed the Rules of Order. I assure you, Sir Dennis, that I had no intention of doing so. I was only trying to give reasons why a special Province should not be created, and I will endeavour, with my limited knowledge of the procedure of the House, to keep within the bounds of order. I hope I am not out of order if I point out, as the reason why this Province of Sind should not be created a separate Province and cut away administratively from the Presidency of Bombay, the fear of these people as to what is going to happen to them. In the evidence before the Joint Select Committee particular mention was made of the kidnapping of women and children, and a question was asked as to how many women and children are to be kidnapped, how many houses burned and destroyed before the Governor can intervene? I only mention that to show the fear which exists in the minds of the people who gave evidence against this proposal. If only a few were kidnapped the Governor would not feel entitled to intervene. What, therefore, they asked, was the formula? On this question of the fear of minorities I think the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment—made an
interruption earlier in the day with regard to Sind. He said that, after all, an objection of that sort applied to all the other Provinces as well as to Sind. But surely that does not rob the argument of any of its strength; it is only an added argument against the whole Bill, and not an argument in favour of making Sind a separate province. Again, it was pointed out in the evidence before the Joint Select Committee that there was a scarcity of men sufficiently capable to sit in the proposed new Legislature, and I believe that even Mohammedan witnesses agreed that that was so.
The point that I wish to make before sitting down is that the real reason for this proposal seems to me to be that, unless this Province is created, unless this minority of Hindus is placed under the control of a Government of Moslems, there will be no safeguard against the misbehaviour of Hindus in other parts of India. But I would remind the Committee that the minority in Sind is a most aristocratic, civilised, and highly educated minority, and they are going to be exposed as hostages for the good behaviour of Hindus in other parts of India, when the Hindus are in a majority. In the evidence it is distinctly stated, both by Hindus and by Mohammedans, that this Hindu minority in Sind are regarded as so many hostages for the good behaviour of Hindus in other provinces. That seems to me to be a terrible thing; it seems to me to be a most cynical proposal to emanate from any civilised government, let alone a British Government, that we should be prepared to consider placing the minority of Sind in the position of hostages. That minority realises that that is the position; in their evidence they declare that the majority population regard them as so many hostages. If the Hindus who are in a majority in other Provinces in India were to turn round and massacre Mohammedans, then in Sind you would have this highly civilised and aristocratic minority at the mercy of Mohammedans who have been provoked and may work vengeance upon them. That seems to me to be a dreadful position.
I should like to make it plain at least that this is not the imagining or vapouring of a mere private Member of this House. It is the language used by the
Mohammedans in their evidence, and it is the language used by the Hindus in their evidence. It is hard to believe that this Government with its great Conservative majority and its traditions of caring for the minorities and their welfare throughout the British Empire will insist on a proposal whereby it is willing to hand over as hostages these small minorities. Surely, here we come to the root of the matter, because this is the real safeguard. I suppose that it would be ironical to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the invention of one safeguard which cannot fail, because that is the real kernel of the matter. This safeguard cannot fail. If you create this Province you make it possible for Mohammedans all over India, where Hindus have great majorities, to say, "You can massacre us in many Provinces in India, but by Jove if you do, we know what to do in Sind."
I cannot believe that the Government will carry on with this proposal and that this Committee will endorse it. Although it is perfectly true that, if you are going to carry through the Bill, the only way you can safeguard Mohammedan minorities in other Provinces is to bring in this safeguard of hostages in Sind, I cannot believe that I am alone in taking a view that if you do this thing you are returning to Biblical days and to the principle of an eye for an eye, and a life for a life, and those were days we thought would never come back in this world. I must apologise if I have spoken with too much feeling on this subject, but it seems to me to be a dreadful thing to see not only a civilised Government but of all Governments a British Government and a National Government come with a proposal such as this, which is surely unrivalled in its cynicism.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I shall endeavour to address the Committee on lines similar to those I followed on the last Amendment with reference to Orissa. The difficulties of the separation of Sind have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner), and I would like to try to answer one or two of them and show that we consider there is a very strong case for the establishment of a separate Province of Sind. In the first place, there are those geographical
difficulties which were included in discussing the previous Amendment in the case of Orissa and Bihar. The geographical difficulties in the case of Sind and Bombay are really more striking. The only satisfactory approach from Bombay to Karachi is by sea, and this takes, as hon. Members who have experienced it know, a very long time and is not at all easy. The method of conducting the administration of Sind at the present time is by a very marked, definite line from the Bombay Government, and we consider that the difficulties of conducting the administration of Sind, when there is a responsible government established in the Bombay Presidency, will be very more marked, and will make the difficulties very much greater.
The communal question has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member in their speeches. The fact is that we consider that the communal difficulties will actually be enhanced by any delay in separating Sind. If a really responsible autonomous government in Bombay attempts to administer Sind—and we know that the communal difficulties are there, and it is no good trying to avoid them completely—we think that very much greater friction will result than by the proposal we suggest that Sind should, in fact, be a separate Province. We think that there would be worse struggles not only between the new government who would be established at Bombay and the Moslems in Sind, who would take up a very strong communal attitude, but also there would be communal reactions throughout India, which would render the whole communal outlook in India very much less satisfactory than if we were to proceed upon the lines we suggest. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member will realise that we fully appreciate their anxiety about the communal system, but we think that the difficulties would be worse if the Amendment to leave out Sind from this Clause were accepted.
The hon. Member for West Islington said that he had unfortunately come without some of his documents, and therefore I must not take undue advantage of him by quoting too extensively from the documents I have with me. I do not want to fight him with a particular
weapon when he has not his weapons entirely with him, but I would refer him to one answer given by the Moslem representative before the Joint Select Committee when the question of Sind was being discussed. The reference is Answer A496 on page 2164. The Moslem representative there declared that he realised that Sind Hindus must take an appreciable share in the Government of the Provinces. We believe that the undoubted influence of the Sind Hindus, to which the hon. Member very rightly referred, will make itself felt. We believe that they have a contribution to make, and do not believe that there will be dire results from separation or that any complete or perpetual extermination of the Hindus in Sind will actually take place. The Sind Hindus have a great tradition, and we believe that they will exercise their influence in the future government of Sind. The Governor's special responsibility for the minorities must not be forgotten, and that special responsibility which is included in this Bill will operate to advantage in the cases of necessity which may arise in the future Province of Sind.
And now with regard to finances. The finances of Sind were considered by the Statutory Commission when they considered the question of future separation, and they suggested that this matter should be reviewed by an expert committee. The expert committee did review the question of the future finances of the Province of Sind, and came to the conclusion, which I can give very generally to the Committee, namely, that the future cost of the deficit of the Province of Sind would be approximately three quarters of a crore, of which some 10.26 lakhs would be the extra overhead charge directly attributable to the fact that the machinery for a Governor's Province was to be set up in Sind. There is also on page 50 of the records in volume 3 of the Joint Select Committee's submissions to this House, the actual sum necessary for new buildings in Sind, which amount to some seven lakhs. That, therefore, is the total financial deficit anticipated for the future financing of Sind, but it must be remembered—and the financial committee referred specially to this—that the financial future of Sind is bound up with that immense and future project of the Sukkur Barrage.
The Committee estimated that over the course of approximately 15 years the deficit would be wiped out by the increased takings resulting from the successful operation of the Sukkur Barrage. We believe that the effects of the operation of the Barrage will begin to be felt even in the next five years, and, through that, the deficit will be reduced gradually but surely. This deficit will be met by a subvention from the central revenue, and to that extent the Bombay Presidency will be relieved of the amount I have mentioned. The central revenues will be relieved as the takings from the Barrage come in. In order to be assured that the Barrage is administered in a true and proper manner, the Governor of Sind will have a special responsibility for its proper administration. The Committee, therefore, will see that the question of the finance of the future Province of Sind has been carefully and adequately examined, and actually will relieve the Bombay revenue. For these reasons, geographically, communally, and financially, we consider it sound to proceed with the proposal for a future Province of Sind.

9.27 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not want to delay the Committee, but there are many who have had communications from the minority in Sind, and who do realise the very grave fears of the minority. I did not realise that this discussion was coming on now, but I believe the population is 27 per cent. Hindu and 73 Moslem. That, of course, is a very serious situation, for the Hindus were previously under the protection of a Government where their religious persuasions were involved. No doubt they view with great dread this transfer to a permanent minority position under Moslems in the new Province. I only wish to intervene for just one moment, because I think this may be a great mistake and one of the errors of the Bill. This reminds me of the errors of which politicians were guilty at the end of the Great War in creating lots of new communities. I cannot believe it is really wise to risk the possibility of considerably increased expenditure in this new Province. You say that you are only going to spend so many lakhs, but, before you know where you are, you will have all sorts of demands for all sorts of new projects. I wonder whether the poor population can really afford to bear that
burden which is bound to come, for the moment a new Government is established hundreds of optimistic men who desire to take part in the job of Government will have all sorts of demands for various institutions. I for one, therefore, regret that the Secretary of State persists in this, for he must be aware of the intense dread of the minority in Sind.

9.29 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend holding the views he does has every right to object to self-government per se. No one quarrels with him if he does that. What he and the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway is not entitled to do is to attribute to the Moslem community what they do. There is no more reason to suppose that where Moslems are in the majority they will be less fair in their treatment than where the Hindus are in the majority.

Sir H. CROFT: Memories are very fresh in India, and, for example, in Moplah and Cawnpore certain things happened with lamentable results.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not slip my point. I am not arguing on the subject of communal differences, or whether or not communal differences are likely to be exasperated. I am speaking as one with considerable sympathy with the Moslem community. My statement is quite simple though I may be wrong. I ask him to apply the argument he has just used in a more friendly spirit, to apply it also to a Hindu majority elsewhere. He has no right to suggest that where Moslems are in the majority things will happen to Hindus, unless he thinks the same will happen where Hindus are in the majority. Holding the general views that he does about India, and also the Empire—which he and I share—he should be the last person to bring charges against the Moslems, for no community has been more loyal to the British connection. The hon. Member below the Gangway, whose knowledge is not very extensive, made several references to this. I think he used rather unfortunate language about two great communities in India, rather wounding language. In regard to the other matter that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite raised—I should like to endeavour to answer it—was it really desirable on pure grounds of administration
to make this separation. Dealing purely with the question of administration, anyone with experience of that would know that administratively it would be a good thing to separate Sind from Bombay. There is everything to be said for this proposal, though it may be possible to object to it on other grounds. I hope we shall hear the last of the suggestion about the Moslems and the Hindus, that either is going to punish or bully the other. Nothing is more calculated to make them do that than such irresponsible speeches.

9.34 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: Many Members present heard my speech and will support me when I say that I really must take exception to the lecture of the Noble Lord on what he imagined I just said. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Hoare) will agree that I uttered not one word in the form of a charge against the Moslems. Where you have great communal differences the Hindus, hitherto always protected by the Government of Bombay, will have dread now they are going to be placed in a permanent minority. The Noble Lord is well aware that that is a great problem in India, and I am simply stating a truth. I am making no charge. I had the same privilege of admiring the qualities of the Moslems when I fought side by side with them as the Noble Lord, and I will not have anyone suggest that I have ever said a word against the Mohammedan subjects of the King-Emperor. When the Noble Lord turned upon my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, West (Mr. Donner) and said that he had no right to talk of hostages, let me say that my hon. Friend, whose memory was so admirable in his extempore speech, was merely quoting words from the Joint Select Committee's report, which everyone must remember. Those were the views of the Hindu witnesses before the Joint Select Committee. I know that my Noble Friend was very assiduous in his attendance at the Joint Select Committee, but perhaps it was on one of the days when he happened not to be present that this evidence was given.

Earl WINTERTON: I accept most heartily my hon. and gallant Friend's admission that he did not intend to
attack the Moslems, and I am sorry that I read into his speech what appeared to be the plain meaning of it.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.37 p.m.

Major MILNER: It is a rather curious feature of the Debate on this Clause that not one word has been said about the position of Burma. The Committee will appreciate that this is the Clause which says that Burma shall cease to be part of India. I rise in order to obtain a statement from the Government of the reasons which guided them in deciding that in future Burma shall be separated from India and shall not be a member of the Indian Federation. I should like to know the circumstances surrounding the whole of this matter. At the end of the Burma Round Table Conference in 1932 the Prime Minister indicated to Burma that a general election would be held at which the people of Burma would decide whether they would remain as part of the Indian Federation or be separated, with a distinct government of their own.

9.38 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: On a point of Order. I want to ask whether we are to have a general Debate upon the separation of Burma now or whether it would not be better to have the Debate when we come, to the Clauses dealing with Burma. I am not saying this in any way with the object of interrupting the hon. and gallant Member, but I suggest that it might be more convenient to have the general Debate when we come to Burma.

Major MILNER: So long as we shall have that opportunity I am perfectly happy to accept that point of view.

9.39 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it might be well if I reply to a point of Order and put a further point in this connection. It may appear to Members of the Committee to be illogical that, having dealt with the certain Provinces by Amendments on this Clause, we should suggest that the Debate on the separation of Burma from India should be deferred. May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the separation of Burma is a very much bigger community
than Sind or Orissa and that this is one of the occasions when one has to decide where is the most convenient place to raise the discussion. Although I cannot prevent references being made to the separation of Burma on this Clause, I think it would be for the general convenience of the Committee that the question should be raised on the earlier Clauses of Part XIV, which deal definitely with Burma. I may say in regard to that matter that, if it meets with the general approbation of the Committee, I shall confirm on the note which I have already made that the passing of this Clause is not to be regarded as a bar to the raising of the question of the separation of Burma on Part XIV.

Mr. LANSBURY: We want to be quite sure that when my hon. and gallant Friend and others desire to raise to the fullest extent the question of Burma we shall not be prejudiced by allowing this Clause to go through now. I understand that to be your Puling. Therefore, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will postpone his remarks on the Burma question until we get to the point that you have just mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN: I thought that I had said that. I had hoped to save the right hon. Gentleman the trouble af rising.

Mr. LANSBURY: We must not be in too much of a hurry. We want to be sure that if my hon. and gallant Friend desires to move Burma into the Indian Federation he may do so. If that right is safeguarded, then it will be all right.

The CHAIRMAN: If I can remember them correctly, I will repeat the exact words that I used. I shall confirm the note I have already made that the passing of this Clause is not to be taken as any bar to a Debate on the question of the separation of Burma. Other questions relating to Burma will be distinctly out of order on this Clause, but they will be distinctly in order when we come to Part XIV.

Mr. LANSBURY: It will then be in order to move Burma in in the same way that hon. Members have moved to leave out Sind and Orissa. We only want to be put in the position that we can make a Motion to that effect and that the right to do it will be safeguarded, in spite of
the fact that this Clause which we are now passing leaves Burma out.

The CHAIRMAN: It will be in order when we come to Part XIV of the Bill to move an Amendment which would result in negativing the proposed separation of Burma from India.

Major MILNER: In those circumstances I am content to allow the matter to lapse now.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I should like to ask a question in regard to Madras. Hitherto, the City of Bangalore has been within the jurisdiction of Madras, and I should like to know whether in the new reorganisation Bangalore will remain within the jurisdiction of Madras. There has been a question of the cession of Bangalore to Mysore. Bangalore is a city of 137,000 inhabitants, and a large number of them are Moslems who very greatly object to being ceded to Mysore, and so do the traders of the city.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that question would come definitely on Clause 272.

CLAUSE 47.—(Provisions as to Berar.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.45 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I desire to get a statement from the Secretary of State as to the position of Berar. The Clause says:
And whereas it is in contemplation that an agreement shall be concluded between His Majesty and His Exalted Highness whereby, notwithstanding the continuance of the sovereignty of His Exalted Highness over Berar, the Central Provinces and Berar may be governed together as one Governor's Province under this Act by the name of the Central Provinces and Berar: while any such agreement is in force (a) Berar and the Central Provinces shall, notwithstanding the continuance of the sovereignty of His Exalted Highness, be deemed to be one Governor's Province by the name of the Central Provinces and Berar.
Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State as to what this agreement is. An agitation has gone on for a great many years, and I think we should have a clear statement as to what the Government now actually propose to do. I understand that the sovereignty of the Nizam over Berar is established but that the inhabitants of Berar have not lost
their rights to have representative government and to continue their connection with the Central Provinces. The people of Berar are anxious to know whether they are to retain their rights as subjects of British India as hitherto, or whether the proposed agreement changes their status and they are to become the subjects of the Nizam. I should like to know what change it is proposed to make in the status of the ordinary inhabitants of Berar and what effect this agreement will have, so far as they are concerned.

9.48 p.m.

Major MILNER: I have always understood that the position with regard to Berar was that the Nizam had definitely agreed to the administration of Berar as part of British India. That position has been in existence since 1853, and has been perfectly clear. The Viceroy has said so on one occasion and the Nizam has also said so. The Joint Select Committee refers to the agreement as if it was concluded, but in Clause 47 it will be observed that Sub-section (2) says:
If no such agreement is concluded, or if suet an agreement is concluded but subsequently ceases to have effect, references in this Act to the Central Provinces and Berar shall be construed as references to the Central Provinces, and His Majesty in Council may make such consequential modifications in the provisions of this Act relating to the Central Provinces as he thinks proper.
The position, therefore, seems to me that there is not at the moment a concluded agreement, and if not then the position of the inhabitants of Berar is that they are left in the air. For many years they have to all intents and purposes been part of British India. They have been joined up to the Central Provinces and have had representatives in the Legislature of the Central Provinces. A great many consequences have ensued from that position, and, therefore, serious questions arise if there is no agreement for that position to continue. There is likely to be more apprehension as to their position on the part of the people of Berar. There is this further point. Paragraph (b) says:
Any reference in this Act or in any other Act to British India shall be construed as a reference to British India and Berar, and any reference in this Act to subjects of His Majesty shall, except for the purposes of any oath of allegiance, be deemed to include a reference to Berari subjects of His Exalted Highness.
According to my information, since 1853, certainly for a great many years, the practice has been to take the oath of allegiance to His Majesty only. Apparently the Clause anticipates that notwithstanding an agreement between His Exalted Highness the Nizam and the British Government the oath of allegiance shall be taken both to His Majesty and the Nizam. The consequence is that representatives of Berar in the Central Provinces Legislature are concerned as to whether their future position is not going to be very different from that in the past, and that they are going to be subjects of the Nizam and not of the British Government. They ask for a reassurance in this matter. I had intended to move an Amendment to make the position clear, but I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to assure us that an agreement has been concluded, or is likely to be concluded, and that in any event the position of the people of Berar will be safeguarded, and that in the future as in the past they will be responsible to the British Government.

9.52 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I can assure hon. Members opposite on this point. The present position of Berar is that it is Hyderabad territory, not British territory. The inhabitants of Berar are not British subjects, and never have been. They are subjects of the Nizam of Hyderabad. For many years past, under treaty with the Nizam, Berar has been administered with the Central Provinces. The administration has been virtually a single administration, but none the less the inhabitants have remained the subjects of the Nizam. In one or two respects the position is somewhat anomalous. In the past the Berar members of the Central Provinces Legislature have taken the oath to His Majesty, although they were really the subjects of the Nizam. It was felt that in view of the changes which are taking place as to Federation and the setting up of autonomous provinces that an anomaly of that kind could not continue, and it was clearly felt that it was essential to go on with the arrangements practically as they are now. I can assure hon. Members that there is no question of retroceding the administration of Berar to the Nizam.
The Nizam and the Government have been in discussion about the future, and there is a general agreement to go on with the arrangements as they are at present. It is, however, necessary, particularly in view of the fact that federation is being set up, to recognise that they are subjects of the Nizam, but none the less the administration is going on in the future as it has during past years. The agreement made between His Exalted Highness the Nizam and the Crown will come into operation when provincial autonomy comes in. It will not come into operation before; and it will come in on the lines I have indicated. If provincial autonomy does not come into operation the inhabitants of Berar need have no anxiety on that account. The present Treaty would then remain in force, under which the Berars are administered by the Central Provinces. The position, therefore, is quite safe from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If I understood that statement correctly the inhabitants of the Berars have never been British subjects?

Sir S. HOARE: That is so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Even those born there have always been the subjects of the Nizam, and therefore they have lost nothing by this change? Is it also clear that they do not pay any additional taxes to Hyderabad by reason of this Treaty, that their liability as part of the Central Province remains as it is and there is no additional burden put upon them?

Sir S. HOARE: There is no additional obligation upon them at all. The Governor of the new Central Provinces under provincial autonomy has a special responsibility in regard to the taxes paid by the inhabitants of the Berars.

9.57 p.m.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: It seems to me that in this matter there is no serious danger of injustice being done to anyone. Berar was not conquered from the Mahrattas by the Nizam's sword but by our sword. If the inhabitants do not desire to be put under this Mohammedan Prince I cannot for the life of me see why they should be.

Clauses 48 and 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 50.—(Council of Ministers.)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 32, line 33, after "ministers," to insert "one of whom shall be prime minister."
There is no need to go into the history of the Provinces of India or to raise any complicated matter, because the Amendment is quite clear. We cannot conceive a council of ministers such as is being set up in this part of the Bill unless the prime minister became a member of that council of ministers. We think that the Secretary of State must inadvertently have left out of this Clause any mention of the prime minister. There may be differences between the Governor and the prime minister, but if differences arise it will be very much better that they should be dealt with in the council of ministers instead of being dealt with outside.

Sir S. HOARE: This is almost identical with an Amendment that was moved in the federal chapter of the Bill. This Clause is in the usual form in which it is found in all the British Empire constitutions. No mention is made of a prime minister in any of them. In fact the prime minister does not exist on paper in this country—that is in fact, but not in theory. Secondly, I am sure it would be a mistake to make this reference, by name, in the Bill. As I said in the debates on the federal chapter, the position of prime minister and collective responsibility are features of the Constitution that are going to grow up. Our intention is to encourage collective responsibility, and certainly not to discourage the appointment of a prime minister. But they are essentially features of a constitution that grow up rather than are created by Statute. We make our position clear in paragraph 8 of the Instrument of Instructions. We make it quite clear that the objective we have in mind is collective responsibility. But we do not think it would be appropriate to make the appointment in a Bill, as it is never mentioned in any other constitution, and particularly because in India the development may be somewhat different from the development in Great Britain and other parts of the Empire.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Of course we are acquainted with the fact that technically there is no such person as a Prime Minister in this country. The same thing applies elsewhere. But the Dominions have had a certain amount of experience, and experience has justified some individual person being selected as Prime Minister. This Amendment moved at this point is really related to another Amendment at the top of page 833. In that case the Governor in his discretion may preside at the council of ministers. We wish to put the point that the leading person should be formally regarded as the Prime Minister, and ipso facto, therefore, he might become the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and preside at the Council without the necessity for the Governor interfering in the day-today work of what we might then regard as the formally constituted Cabinet. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman does not find it possible to accept the Amendment. We attach a little importance to it, because he has already said that the Indian people are inclined to think literally in terms of our institutions here, and they would attach some importance to the formal institution of a Cabinet much on the lines that we have in this country. And to give expression to that desire we feel desirous of carrying this to a division.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is no such person constitutionally in this country as a Prime Minister, and the hon. Gentleman who tabled this Amendment knew that there was not, because he spelt it with a small "p" and a small "m." The nominal office would not have had any existence at all, but that George I, I understand, was not able to speak English very well, and he asked the Lord of the Treasury to preside at meetings of the Cabinet, over which previously the Sovereign used to preside. It is true that the Prime Minister here takes precedence after the Archbishop of York, but I am not sure after whom the Prime Minister of India would take precedence.

10.7. p.m.

Mr. COCKS: We want by this Amendment to give the Indian Government a clear start. We would like them to have a prime minister with a party Government.
We do not want to see someone picking a Socialist here, a Conservative there, a Liberal somewhere else, and combining them altogether, and calling them a National Government. That is the kind of thing that would embarrass the Indians from the start. We want to feel that the great precedents of the past in this House—not the one that started in 1931—are being followed. Therefore we think that it would be a very good thing if they had a prime minister with a majority behind him, all agreeing on a particular basis, and an opposition opposing them; and not a system, such as we have had in the last four years, where you have a number of people picked out of a bag, holding all sorts of views, shaken together, and made into a national Cabinet. We think that that would be a bad start for India, and therefore we propose that a prime minister should be provided.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Conservative party have been cajoled into making enormous surrenders of the control of Parliament over India on the basis that all this power is to be placed potentially and under reserve in the hands of the Viceroy, so that if a serious situation arises he can, as it were, resume the power indirectly which Parliament now exercises. This proposal seeks to reduce' the Viceroy, into whose hands these great powers have been placed. It is going beyond what is desirable.

The CHAIRMAN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a question of the Viceroy? We have got on to the Provinces.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But the principle is exactly the same. Having entrusted the whole of these powers to the Governors of the Provinces, you are now to reduce the Governor to the position of a constitutional sovereign who only acts on the receipt of minutes from his Ministers and remains isolated and remote until some very rare constitutional crisis arises. That is a position which is even more destructive of any attempt to give guidance to the Indian Provinces than anything we have heard of in this Bill.

10.11 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to
develop that. This Clause is an exact repetition of the one regarding the Federal Legislature, and I was only moved to select this one particular Amendment at the special request of the Members of the Opposition who explained to me the particular reason for which they wanted to move it. But nothing connected with this Amendment has any effect on what is provided by the rest of the Clause, which has already been decided. It is merely a question, as I see it, whether one of these ministers shall be described as prime minister or not, which is a very narrow point.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With very great respect, Sir, the formal appointment of a provincial prime minister is really not a technical point, and the avowed intention of those who moved this Amendment—and I suppose I am in order in discussing the Amendment—was to create a prime minister and to push the Governor out of the discussions of the Provincial Cabinet, a very grave proposal. It is the kind of proposal which shows how we shall develop in this matter. No doubt the same process will be applied at the centre.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that if that is the meaning of the Amendment I must rule it definitely out of order.

Mr. ATTLEE: On a point of Order. I hope that you will take the meaning of the Amendment from its Movers and not from the right hon. Gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must ask the rest of the Committee to discuss it as it was interpreted by the Mover. It was accepted by the Chair on that basis.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am a little puzzled how you can discuss the question of the appointment of a prime minister without in any way trespassing on the significance of such an event. It seems to me that we are invited to discuss this question in vacuo. What is the point of calling him prime minister if it is not to convey any constitutional change? Hon. Gentlemen, terrorised by your mild authority, for fear their Amendment should be declared out of order, now profess that all that they mean is to call some particular member by the title of "prime minister," but that it is not going to make the slightest difference.
Are we going to take up our limited time in Committee in endeavouring to bestow mere honorific titles. If it be merely a question of calling some minister "prime minister" and it is clearly understood that it will have no effect on the functions, status and significance of the body, I agree that we need not waste our time in speaking to the Amendment. But if there be any question of embarking upon the idea that there is to be erected from these ministers a personage, a potentate who will replace the Governer in council then obviously that is a point upon which we must take a Division.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The point here is that already in India you have a minister who is called the first minister. In the Province of Madras, where, I think most people will agree, the political system under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms has been worked probably rather better than elsewhere and in a manner approximating more closely to our usage, they have this first minister. As I understand, it is not contemplated in the Bill that the Governor will necessarily always preside at the council of ministers. Therefore, we think it is well to provide for a prime minister. We could not discuss this point on the Clause concerning the Central Legislature because at the Centre we are to have a system of dyarchy and a legislature composed partly of elected persons and partly of representatives of the States. We could not discuss this question therefore until we came to the Provinces.
My point is that we are trying to develop, at all events in some of the Provinces, a Parliamentary system something like our own. Whether it is possible or not is arguable but the attempt is being made and for that purpose one does not want to have small collections of ministers presided over by a Governor and dependent in many Provinces upon conflicting groups who will only support their own minister. What we want to do, in order to approximate to our own system is to develop a body of ministers with joint responsibility and a regular body of supporters and for that purpose someone is required in the position of prime minister. I dare say I shall be told as we have been told by one learned historian this
evening, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), that the term "prime minister" is unconstitutional. I do not think anyone will suggest that we would get very far with this Bill if we followed constitutional precedent. The Measure is full of all kinds of novel suggestions and therefore I am not precluded from supporting the Amendment by the fact that this provision has not been included in some other Constitution—I am not even precluded by the fact that we have not a George I in India at the moment. I do not think that really affects the matter. The point is how best to get the Constitution to work. Everybody knows that if there is one thing on which practically all Indian politicians are united, it is the desire to follow as closely as possible the model of Westminster and it is for that reason that we move the Amendment.

10.19 p.m.

Sir C. OMAN: I want to point out that this term with a small "p" and a small "m" has no meaning at all, for prime minster in England is a vague and meaningless term which was applied, for example, to the Duke of Buckingham under Charles I. when the pamphleteers were abusing him. It was applied also to Lord Shaftesbury under Charles II. But it had no technical meaning. It was sometimes applied as an abusive term. I take it that in any group of Ministers there is generally one who has more influence than others and it is extremely likely that in the course of time in these provincial governments, sometimes one person will be prime minister, that is to say the most influential member of the Cabinet and sometimes another. The position of prime minister will be very largely a psychological matter depending on the relative amount of power which individuals in the cabinet exercise. It therefore seems to me that with a small "p" and a small "m" it has no meaning whatever. If you had a big "P" and a big "M," then the whole question raised by the right hon. Gentleman would have come into consideration. In our English literature a prime minister must be taken to be the most important person among the King's advisers—at one moment one person, and at another moment another person, it may be.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I think the object of the hon. Members opposite is entirely met by paragraph VIII in the Instructions to the Governor, which says that in selecting his ministers he shall do it
in consultation with the person who, in his judgment, is most likely to command a stable majority in the Legislature.
Obviously he selects a particular person as the most important and authoritative minister, and he will naturally to that extent be prime minister.

10.22 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think we ought to treat this matter in too frivolous a way, because it is true, as the hon. Member opposite said, that Indians attach a great deal of importance to terms. I am not going to get out of order by attempting to pursue the line pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), though I was strongly tempted to follow him in what he said. He said that if this official is to be a person who really functions, he will object to the Amendment. I believe that in our rough island history there have been instances of Prime Ministers here who did not properly function. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am talking historically of those cases where some member of the Government has been more powerful than the Prime Minister. I am not talking of the present day or the present generation, but there have been such cases in the past.
It is true to say that under this proposal, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), not only under this Clause but under a subsequent Clause, it is clear that that Indian statesman who has the most influence over his particular party and over his particular province would be chosen by the Governor as spokesman for the rest. There is nothing in the Clause to prevent a development such as the hon. Members opposite wish to see, nor is there anything in the Clause which would have the calamitous results which my right hon. Friend foresaw but which he was not able fully to expound to the Committee owing to the ruling of the Chair. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to put in these words. If we do, let us spell them with a capital "P" and a capital "M," but let us not
use a phrase which in this country is hardly constitutional. In the old days we talked of "the First Lord of the Treasury," though I am sorry to say that in recent years there has grown up the habit of referring to him as "the Prime Minister." If we are going to use a phrase of this kind, let us use a term which is more common in the country in which it will be used, such as Vizier or

Diwan, not an English phrase which in this country is only a cognomen and is not really an official term.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 39.

Division No. 100.]
AYES.
[10.28 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McCorquodale, M. S.


Albery, Irving James
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McKeag, William


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McKie, John Hamilton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Apsley, Lord
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Glossop, C. W. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Martin, Thomas B.


Balniel, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gower, Sir Robert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Graves, Marjorie
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Milne, Charles


Bernays, Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Blindell, James
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bossom, A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Boulton, W. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Moss, Captain H. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Munro, Patrick


Brass, Captain Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Broadbent, Colonel John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Buchan, John
Holdsworth, Herbert
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Patrick, Colin M.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hornby, Frank
Peake, Osbert


Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pearson, William G.


Burnett, John George
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peat, Charles U.


Butler, Richard Austen
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Penny, Sir George


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Petherick, M.


Carver, Major William H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Potter, John


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Janner, Barnett
Pybus, Sir John


Christle, James Archibald
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rankin, Robert


Cook, Thomas A.
Ker, J. Campbell
Rea, Walter Russell


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kimball, Lawrence
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Remer, John R.


Curry, A. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rickards, George William


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lewis, Oswald
Robinson, John Roland


Denman, Hon. R D.
Liddall, Walter S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denville, Alfred
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Donner, P. W.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Duckworth, George A. V.
Liewellin, Major John J.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Loftus, Pierce C.
Russell. R. J. (Eddisbury)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mabane, William
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Salt, Edward W.
Stones, James
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Storey, Samuel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Selley, Harry R.
Strauss, Edward A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Shute, Colonel Sir John
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wayland, Sir William A.


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Templeton, William P.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Somerset, Thomas
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Somervell, Sir Donald
Thompson, Sir Luke
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo



Spens, William Patrick
Tree, Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and


Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Turton, Robert Hugh
Major George Davies.


Stevenson, James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Leonard, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John
Wilmot, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Milner, Major James
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 52.—(Special responsibilities of Governor.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 33, line 38, at the end, to insert:
arising from subversive movements or the activities of any person or persons tending to crimes of violence."—[Mr. Mainwaring.]

The CHAIRMAN: Sir Samuel Hoare.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Do I understand, Sir Dennis, that you are are not calling the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring).

The CHAIRMAN: That is so.

Mr. COCKS: Further to that point of Order. We were informed, when we put down an Amendment on the federation side, that it was not called so that the subject might be discussed on the provincial side.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is mistaken. The Amendment is not selected.

Mr. COCKS: Further to that point of Order. Is it not possible—

The CHAIRMAN: No.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I gather in consultation with my friends, that a very definite pledge was given by the Chairman of the Committee at an earlier stage that this Amendment would be called at this stage. I should be very glad indeed if we could have a chance of discussing the matter and if you could reconsider your decision.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know of and cannot admit any question of a pledge from the Chair that this Amendment will be called. As a matter of fact the hon. Member and others drew my special attention to their wish to move this Amendment and I looked at it with great care to see if I could meet their wishes. Without going to the extent of giving reasons I can assure the hon. Member that there were reasons which in my opinion make it quite impossible for me to select the Amendment.

Mr. JONES: Thank you, Sir.

10.40 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 34, line 1, after "to," to insert:
and to the dependants of, persons who are or have been.
This is the same Amendment that I moved in the Federal Chapter to safeguard the dependants of members of the public services.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 34, line 2, after "provided," insert "or preserved."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 34, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(h) the safeguarding of the financial stability and credit of the Provincial Government.
These words, as the Committee will remember, appear in paragraph (b) of Clause 12, where one of the special responsibilties of the Governor-General is the financial stability and credit of the Federal Government. I was rather amazed, when reading the special responsibilities of provincial Governors, to discover that they did not include the question of the financial stability and credit of any of the provincial governments. I realise that the provincial governments are not in quite the same financial situation as the Federal Government when we are considering the relationships of India as a whole to the world as a whole. As regards questions like those of exchange rates, the balance of trade, or borrowing outside India, India as a whole, and its financial stability and credit, are in a peculiar position, but strictly speaking that is not the case to the same extent with the Provinces. To take the analogy of this country, if what we may call the Federal Government of this country—the government which ultimately derives, its authority from the country—makes mistakes, the effect on the credit of this country as a whole, from the point of view of the world at large, may be disastrous. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman opposite inspires the Metropolitan Borough Council of Poplar to indulge in grave errors, as a result of which Poplar is reduced to a deplorable state, that would not necessarily wreck the credit of the British Government.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why single out Poplar?"] I was only taking Poplar as an example of what might happen. In this country we have, not a federal government, but a unitary government. We have, however, a great
many self-governing areas which get into a certain amount of financial trouble, and, remembering that the right hon. Gentleman once went to gaol because he did not quite like all these financial responsibilities, he seemed to be a useful example to quote. I did not go beyond that. I understand that Brixton was more comfortable than, he anticipated, but that is by the way.
On the other hand, a provincial government in India is very much larger than any local government authority in this country. Some of the Indian provinces have populations of 50,000,000 or more. If the anticipations of some hon. Members are realised, and these provincial governments, with the real responsibilities that this Bill will give them, pursued an active policy of social reform of a kind that all of us would wish to pursue so far as we were financially able to do so—if they pursued such a policy to a point at which ultimately they involved the province in a grave financial responsibility, a condition might arise in which, for the sake of the reputation of India as a whole, the Federal Government might find itself called upon to come to the aid of a province, irrespective of any provisions that may be contained in this Bill. It is obvious that an important unit in the Government of the country cannot be permitted to crash, and yet conceivably a provincial government might pursue a financial policy which ultimately would bring the province into complete financial discredit. Nevertheless, under the Bill as it stands, the Governor has no special responsibility in the matter. I think that he ought to have a special responsibility, and it is for that reason that I have moved this Amendment.

10.45 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid that I must resist this Amendment. I am taking my stand on the solid and unshakeable rock of the Simon Commission. Hon. Members will remember that in the report of the Statutory Commission there is a long paragraph upon this subject in which it is clear that the question is very fully considered as to whether the safeguard was necessary for the Provincial Governments. Hon. Members of the Committee will find that there is an overwhelming case set out in the paragraph against the proposition
urged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). The position is that in the case of the Federal Legislature at the Centre there are several reasons for responsibility of this kind. There is the reason of the credit of India and of the large charge upon the Indian revenues for services like the service of debt, the maintenance of the Army and other services, like the maintenance of the provision for pensions. Those special conditions do not exist in the ease of the Provinces. As they do not exist, there seems every reason against entrenching so widely upon the field of provincial autonomy as would be the result of imposing upon the Provincial Governments a safeguard of this kind. I was under the impression that almost all of us wished to make provincial autonomy a real autonomy and put as much responsibility as possible upon the shoulders of the ministers. If an Amendment of this kind is carried it will, for no good reason, as far as I can judge, very seriously entrench on that responsibility, and on that account I recommend very strongly to the Committee that they should abide by the carefully considered recommendations of the Simon Commission and of the Joint Select Committee and by the view that I strongly express to the Committee to-night, that an Amendment of this kind would strike at the very root of provincial autonomy.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that six or seven years ago he and I voted for a Bill which enabled special commissioners to be put into West Ham and one or two other places, and I would ask him if he can give any reason why the Federal Government of India should not have the same power which this Parliament definitely conferred upon the Minister of Health to interfere with certain authorities who were running a financial rake's progress.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting back to the Federal question, which cannot be discussed on this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I notice that the Amendment standing in the name of my
hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) is not taken. May I ask for a Ruling as to when this most important and substantial point can be raised?

The CHAIRMAN: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that I would prefer not to do so. I do not fancy the idea of having to advise Members on how to conduct their business.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I assume that responsibility and assume that a new Clause would be the proper way?

The CHAIRMAN: I would not venture to say that in public, at any rate.

Further Amendments made:

In page 34, line 23, leave out "Bengal and the Governor of Assam," and insert:
any Province which includes an excluded area.

In line 25, leave out "their," and insert "his."

In line 27, leave out "the Governor of the North-West Frontier Province," and insert:
any Governor who is discharging any functions as agent for the Governor-General.

In line 29, leave out from the second "of," to "is," in line 31, and insert, "those functions."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.53 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: Although on this side of the Committee we have many objections to this Clause, chiefly because we think that the Governor's special responsibilities are too widely defined, I want to concentrate my remarks on one point only in the hope that the Secretary of State may at a later stage meet us on this matter. The point I want to address my remarks to is of great importance, one which was supported by every delegate from British India to the Joint Select Committee. In paragraph (a) the Governor has a special responsibility for the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of a Province or any part thereof. It is the opinion of the Indian delegates, of myself and those on this side of the Committee, that that power was too widely drafted. A great many do not object to the Governor
having special responsibility for anything causing a grave menace, such as a terrorist movement, a movement of violence, a movement against the law and order of the Constitution, but we feel these words cover a much wider sphere than that—that they cover a sphere described earlier in the evening by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). The point that was urged upon the Joint Select Committee was this: Suppose the Indian Government bring forward a Measure, desired by the majority of the members, that impinges to some extent upon the rights, liberties or feelings of another section of the population. It may be a case of temple entry, of child marriage or of land legislation. The fact that the Bill had been produced and that arguments were put forward strongly in support of it, might cause a very active opposition, which might not confine itself to the ordinary arguments of the chamber, but might cause communal and social disturbance. We feel that in a case of that sort the Governor might be approached by the representatives of the minority, who might say: "This is a Bill which the Government are forcing forward which is causing certain disturbance in a part of the Province. We feel that it is causing great menace to the peace and tranquillity of the Province, and therefore we urge you to use your powerful hand to see that the Bill is withdrawn." In our opinion, that is a wrong thing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse said, in the earlier years of the last century the object of the British Government was to remove any grievances which arose from deep-rooted customs in India. Under Lord William Bentinck and the Marquess of Dalhousie a forward policy was pursued to put an end to certain Indian customs which were thought not to be fitting in civilised society, but after the mutiny we were afraid to go on in that way, and it was considered that the English people ought to confine themselves to administration and not to interfere with these Indian customs. One of the arguments for putting more power into the hands of the Indians was that they would be able to deal with these problems which we ourselves felt that we could not do; that we must not interfere with these things but leave the Indians to deal with them when they had control. Now we are giving
India control in this Bill. This particular Clause would enable the Governor-General to say: "You must not go on with that particular Bill, because it is causing wide disturbance, which may be a menace to the peace and tranquillity of the realm.
The second point is this, and we think it is very important—I know that the Secretary of State shares my view in regard to it—that the ministers should learn responsibility by the old method of trial and error. If they bring in a measure which is unpopular they should face the consequences of the unpopularity of that measure. If the Governor is given this particular power in this Clause what will happen will be that those who are opposed to this particular thing will throw the blame not upon the ministers but upon the Governor. Therefore, instead of building up a responsible ministry such as we have in this country, understanding what the difficulties are and tackling them, we shall have ministers throwing responsibility upon the Governor, and the Governor will have to take the blame and the responsibility.

It being Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments of ss. 2 and 3 of 24 & 25 Geo. 5. c. 54.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.2 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: This Measure has been before the House on three occasions already and we feel that our reasons for our opposition have been presented. The Measure is so drawn as to make effective Amendments well nigh impossible and, therefore, we are obliged to persist in our opposition by expressing it in the Lobby. We do not intend to waste the time of the Committee but to take a Division on this Clause and on Clause 2.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The Committee, I am sure, is obliged to the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for his businesslike procedure, and I can assure him that the Government appreciate it. We fully recognise the necessity for the

Opposition to register their opposition to this Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 49.

Division No. 101.]
AYES.
[11.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Graves, Marjorie
Palmer, Francis Noel


Albery, Irving James
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Patrick, Colin M.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Peake, Osbert


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pearson, William G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Peat, Charles U.


Apsley, Lord
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Penny, Sir George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.


Bainlel, Lord
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Potter, John


Bateman, A. L.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hornby, Frank
Pybus, Sir John


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Bernaye, Robert
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rankin, Robert


Bllndell, James
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bossom, A. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Boulton, W. W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Remer, John R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Ker, J. Campbell
Rickards, George William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Robinson, John Roland


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Kimball, Lawrence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Burghley, Lord
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burnett, John George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Butler, Richard Austen
Liddall, Walter S.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Salt, Edward W.


Carver, Major William H.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Selley, Harry R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Christle, James Archibald
Loftus, Pierce C.
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Conant, R. J. E.
Mabane, William
Somerset, Thomas


Cook, Thomas A.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cranborne, Viscount
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Crocke, J. Smedley
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spens, William Patrick


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davison, Sir William Henry
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stevenson, James


Donner, P. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stones, James


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Storey, Samuel


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Martin. Thomas B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Milne, Charles
Thompson, Sir Luke


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Everard, W. Lindsay
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Morrison, G. A, (Scottish Univer'ties)
Tree, Ronald


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Moss, Captain H. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Glliett, Sir George Masterman
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Glossop, C. W. H.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Goff, Sir Park
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Wells, Sydney Richard
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.



Watt, Major George Steven H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wayland, Sir William A.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Sir George Bowyer.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Holdsworth, Herbert
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Janner, Barnett
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cleary, J. J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Curry, A. C.
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McKeag, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Advances to Cattle Fund from Consolidated Fund.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 48.

Division No. 102.]
AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Liddall, Walter S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Albery, Irving James
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Llewellin, Major John J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lockwood. Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Apsley, Lord
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Aske, Sir Robert William
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loftus, Pierce C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Erakine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Bainlel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mabane, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Bateman, A. L.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bernays, Robert
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McKie, John Hamilton


Blindell, James
Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Bossom, A. C.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Boulton, W. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gower, Sir Robert
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Brass, Captain Sir William
Graves, Marjorie
Martin, Thomas B.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Mille, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Milne, Charles


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Burghley, Lord
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Burnett, John George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Butler, Richard Austen
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Horsbrugh, Florence
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Carver, Major William H.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Christle, James Archibald
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Palmer, Francis Noel


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peake, Osbert


Colfox, Major William Philip
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pearson, William G.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peat, Charles U.


Conant, R. J. E.
Ker, J. Campbell
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cook, Thomas A.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Petherick, M.


Crooks, J. Smedley
Kimball, Lawrence
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Potter, John


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Pybus, Sir John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Shute, Colonel Sir John
Tree, Ronald


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Rankin, Robert
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Turton, Robert Hugh


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Somerset, Thomas
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spens, William Patrick
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Rickards, George William
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Robinson, John Roland
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stevenson, James
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Stones, James
Wells, Sydney Richard


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Storey, Samuel
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Russell, Harrier Field (Shef'ld, B'tslde)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Salmon, Sir Isldore
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wise, Alfred R.


Salt, Edward W.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)



Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Selley, Harry R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Holdsworth, Herbert
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Janner, Barnett
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cleary, J. J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Curry, A. C.
Leonard, William
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
McKeag, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.


Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Friday.

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY BILL.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.